STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. versus SOM NATH THAPA ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 225 · Decided: 12-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

v 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. 
A 
v. 
SOM NATH THAPA ETC. 
APR TL 12, 1996 
IA.M. AHMADI, CJ, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.C. SEN, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code 1860, S. 120 A-<::Jiminul conspiracy~Bombay 
blasts in which anns and an1111unition and RDX e.lplosives used--(J1arge of 
con~piracy against nzanber of accused--U!Jiether prosecution 'I-Vas required to 
show that each accused had to have knowledge of commission of illegal act C 
by co-con.\]Jirator in addition to intent to ftather the illegal act- Held1 intent 
could be injen·ed from knowledge when no legitimate use of goods in question 
exists; Held jiuthe1; since RDX cannot be put lo any legitin1ate use prosecution 
need not show that a ]JG1ticular unlawful use 1vas intended . 
Code of Oiminal Procedure 1973, Ss. 227, 228, 239 and 245-Framing D 
of charge-Held, at the stage of framing of charge court cannot go into 
probative value of matelials. 
Tm01ist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987-S.1(4)-Ef-
fect of lapse of Act on jJending investigations--Held, pending investigations E 
have to be continued even after expily of the Act. 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activitie;· 
(P,.evention) Act 
1987,-S.2(1)(a)(iii) r/w S.3(3)-Appellant AAA charged with booking air 
tickets for accused to facilitate their weapon training in Pakistan out his oivn 
funds thus abetting te11nrist act-Held, on exan1inati n of records, there was 
no matCJial to frame individual chwge against appellant~ode of Oiminal 
Procedure, Ss.227, 228. 
Te1ro1ist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987-S.2( 1)(a)(iii) 
F 
r/w s.3(3)-Appellant AAM asking accused to remove jeep with anns and G 
anununition in his co1npound-Held, appellant neither in conscious posses-
sion of anns not abetted accused in conunitting te1To1ist act; entitled to 
dischwge-Code of Climinal Procedure 1973, Ss. 227, 228. 
Ten'Olist and Disntptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987~S.2( J)(a)(iii) 
r/w S.3(3)-Appellant RJ having knowledge of transp01tation of anns and H 
189 
190 
SUPREME COVRT REPORTS IJ'!96I SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A 
RDX used in bomb blast-Appellant providing financial assistance and jeeps 
having cavities to conceal anns·-Heh~ there intention to use it for illegal 
p1u7Jose has to be in1puted; appellant Tightly charged rvith abet111ent-JncUan 
Penal Code 186(}-S. /09. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Terrmist and Dis111ptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987-S.(2)(a)(iii) 
r/w s.3(3)-Appel!ant SNT an Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive) 
charged with facilitating movement of arms, RDX-Appellant granted 
bail-Heir\ charges ni;htly framed but case for cancellation of bail not made 
our-Tenmist and Dis1uptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987, s.20(8) 
On March 12, 1993 a series of bomb blasts took place at important 
centres of com1nercial activity in Bombay leaving move than 250 persons 
dead, 730 injured and property worth about Rs. 27 crores destroyed. The 
investigation by the CBI led to chargesheet being filed against 145 persons 
under various provisions of the IPC and the Terrorist and Disruptive 
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The designated court framed 
charges against 127 persons including the appellants AAA, AAM, RJ and 
SNT. The appellants assailed in this Court, the order of the Designated 
Court framing charges against each of them for offence; punishable under 
TADA. 
AA>\ was charged with having booked air tickets for the other 
accused for their travel to Pakistan for weapon training from his own 
funds thus abetting a terrorist act. According to AAA, on account of 
cancellation of a ticket on March 11, 1993 an amount of Rs. 9,939 had been 
credited in the account of his firm in the books of M/s. Hans Air Service. 
Relying on this, the prosecution contended that money for the journey of 
F 
the terrorists had been paid. 
As regards AAM, the charge was that he had permitted a co-accused 
to park jeeps laden with arms and RDX explosives in his premises and 
was therefore in conscious possession of the same. AAM contended that 
G he had objected to the co-accused parking his vehicle and asked him to 
remove it immediately. Therefore he had not aided or abetted the co-ac-
cused. 
The charge against RJ was that be had provided financial assistance 
and jeeps to the accused which had cavities to conceal ammunition and 
H 
RDX. The jeeps used were recovered at his instance. It was contended for 
STATE v. S.N. THAPA 
191 
RJ even if he had knowledge about transportation of arms, he did n"ot play A 
a part

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