Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a criminal revision application against the common order dated 5.12.2006 passed by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, discharging accused Nos.3,5,6,8,9,10 and 11 in Session Trial Nos.84/2002 and 85/2002. The prosecution case was that the accused, residents of Jalgaon, hatched a conspiracy in MIDC area of Jalgaon to take revenge against the Indian Government and Hindus, made aggressive speeches, enrolled young persons as members of SIMI, provided training in arms and bomb preparation, and prepared bombs at Jalgaon which were transported to Nagpur by accused No.1 and 2 for planting in public places to cause explosions. The charges included offences under Sections 153-B, 121, 121-A, 122, 123 read with 34 IPC, Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Sections 10,13,16,18,20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The trial court discharged the accused on the ground that there was no prima facie case against them. The High Court, per A.B. Chaudhari, J., held that the trial court erred in discharging the accused as the material on record, including statements of witnesses and recovery of bombs, prima facie showed the involvement of all accused in the conspiracy. The court observed that at the stage of framing of charges, only a prima facie case is required and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The revision was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to frame charges against the accused and proceed with the trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge under Section 227 - Prima Facie Case - The court must consider whether a strong suspicion exists against the accused based on the material on record; if so, charges must be framed. The trial court's order discharging accused was set aside as there was sufficient material showing conspiracy and preparation of bombs. (Paras 1-21)
B) Indian Penal Code - Conspiracy and Waging War - Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 153-B, 34 IPC - The prosecution alleged that accused hatched conspiracy to wage war against India, prepared bombs, and transported them to Nagpur for blasts. The court held that the material prima facie showed involvement of all accused in the conspiracy. (Paras 2-21)
C) Explosive Substances Act - Sections 4 and 5 - Possession and Use of Explosives - The accused were charged with possession of bombs and explosive substances with intent to cause explosions. The court found sufficient evidence to frame charges. (Paras 2-21)
D) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act - Sections 10, 13, 16, 18, 20 - Membership of SIMI and Terrorist Activities - The accused were alleged to be members of SIMI and involved in terrorist activities. The court held that the material disclosed prima facie commission of offences under the Act. (Paras 2-21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in discharging the accused persons under Section 227 CrPC despite existence of prima facie evidence of conspiracy to wage war against India and cause bomb blasts.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned order dated 5.12.2006, and directed the trial court to frame charges against the accused and proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Discharge under Section 227 CrPC
- Prima facie case
- Conspiracy
- Waging war against India
- Explosive Substances Act
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (02) 138
Criminal Revision Application No.14/2007
State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Kotwali, Nagpur
Sheikh Ilias Sheikh Yusuf, Sheikh Irfan Abdul Rauf, Wakarul Hussen Mujaffar Hussen, Sk. Siddik Sk. Ajij, Sk. Shakil Ahmad Abdul Annan, Sharifkhan Sarfarajkhan, Guljar Ahmad Gulam Wani @ Hasaratbeg @ Hamid Faruque @ Faruque Ali, @ Sashid @ Nazir @ Rafique
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application by the State against order of discharge of accused in sessions trial for offences relating to conspiracy to wage war against India and bomb blasts.
Remedy Sought
The State sought setting aside of the trial court's order discharging the accused and direction to frame charges.
Filing Reason
The trial court discharged accused Nos.3,5,6,8,9,10 and 11 on the ground that no prima facie case was made out against them.
Previous Decisions
The trial court passed the impugned order dated 5.12.2006 discharging the accused in Session Trial Nos.84/2002 and 85/2002.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in discharging the accused under Section 227 CrPC despite existence of prima facie evidence of conspiracy to wage war against India and cause bomb blasts.
Whether the material on record was sufficient to frame charges against the accused.
Submissions/Arguments
The State argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the material on record, including statements of witnesses and recovery of bombs, which prima facie showed the involvement of all accused in the conspiracy.
The accused argued that there was no direct evidence linking them to the conspiracy and that the trial court correctly discharged them.
Ratio Decidendi
At the stage of framing of charges under Section 227 CrPC, the court is required to consider whether a strong suspicion exists against the accused based on the material on record. If a prima facie case is made out, charges must be framed. The trial court erred in discharging the accused as the material prima facie showed their involvement in the conspiracy to wage war against India and cause bomb blasts.
Judgment Excerpts
The State of Maharashtra, Police Station Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Nagpur being aggrieved by the common order dated 5.12.2006, below Exh.160 in Session Trial No.84/2002 and below Exh.75 in Session Trial No.85/2002, passed by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur has challenged the impugned order, by which those two applications were allowed in respect of accused Nos.3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 in those trials and consequently, they were discharged.
It is the case of the prosecution that accused persons who are resident of Jalgaon hatched conspiracy in M.I.D.C. area of Jalgaon by holding meetings to take revenge against Indian Government and Hindus and had made aggressive speeches and publication in order to promote hatred between Hindu and Muslim community.
Procedural History
The trial court passed the impugned order dated 5.12.2006 discharging the accused in Session Trial Nos.84/2002 and 85/2002. The State filed Criminal Revision Application No.14/2007 before the High Court challenging the said order. The High Court heard the revision and delivered judgment on 16.02.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 153-B, 34
- Explosive Substances Act, 1908: 4, 5
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA): 10, 13, 16, 18, 20
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 227
