Court : Supreme Court of India
APPEALS RELATING TO LIFE SENTENCE PART-2 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1178 of 2007 Essa @ Anjum Abdul Razak Memon (A-3) Appellant(s) vs. The State of Maharashtra, through STF, CBI Mumbai ...Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No.1179 of 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No.419 of 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1181 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 1127-1128 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 1252-1253 of 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No.413 of 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1365 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1224 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1440 of 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No.1028 of 2012 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1441 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.401 of 2008 AND Criminal Appeal No.1023 of 2012 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 976-977 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.616 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 979-980 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 633 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 651-652 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal Nos. 653 AND 65.of 2008 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
APPEALS RELATING TO DEATH SENTENCE PART-1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1728 of 2007 Yakub Abdul Razak Memon .... Appellant(s) vs. The State of Maharashtra, through CBI , Bombay . Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No.609-610 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.628-629 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.637-638 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.365 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.864-865 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.897 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.941-942 of 2008 AND Death Reference Case No.1 of 2011 ******** REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 2 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1728 OF 200.Yakub Abdul Razak Memon .... Appellant (s) Versus State of Maharashtra thr., CBI, Bombay .... Respondent(s) With Batch JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J.1) This appeal and the connected matters have been directed against the final orders and judgments of conviction and sentence passed on various dates by the Presiding Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
P. Sathasivam, J.1) This appeal and the connected matters have been directed against thefinal orders and judgments of conviction and sentence passed on variousdates by the Presiding Officer of the Designated Court under Terrorist andDisruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short 'the TADA') forBombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in BBC No. 1 of 1993. These appealshave been filed under Section 19 of the TADA by the accused against theirconviction and sentence and by the CBI for confirmation of the deathsentence and against the acquittal of some of the accused persons.2) Brief facts:The case of the prosecution is as follows:(a) Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was demolished on 06.12.1992. After itsdemolition, violence broke out throughout the country. In order to takerevenge of the said demolition, Tiger Memon (AA) and Dawood Ibrahim, aresident of Dubai, formulated a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act in thecity of Bombay. In pursuance of the said object, Dawood Ibra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
APPEALS FILED BY THE ACCUSED (PART 3) REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.555 OF 201.Ibrahim Musa Chauhan @ Baba Chauhan Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH Criminal Appeal No.1129-1130 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.402 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.617-618 of 2008 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1631 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1419 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1226 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1422 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1180 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1225 of 2007 WITH Criminal Appeal No.919 of 2008 AND Criminal Appeal No.1393 of 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.555 OF 201.Ibrahim Musa Chauhan @ Baba Chauhan Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J:1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgments and orders dated 29.11.2006 and 6.6.2007 passed by a Special Judge of the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
P. Sathasivam, J.1) Mr. Harish Salve, Mr. Surendra Singh, Mr. B.H. Marlapalle learned senior counsel appeared for A-117, A-118, A-124 respectively and Mr. Raval, learned ASG duly assisted by Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel appeared for the respondent-CBI.2) The above said appeals are directed against the final judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2006 and 31.07.2007respectively by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blast Case, Greater Bombay in B.B.C. No.1/1993.Charges:3) A common charge of conspiracy was framed against all the co-conspirators including the appellants. The relevant portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder: "During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (U.A.E.) Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object was to commit terrorist acts in India and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
APPEALS FILED UNDER ARMS ACT/EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT PART-6 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1060 of 2007 Sanjay Dutt (A-117) .... Appellant(s) vs. The State of Maharashtra, through CBI (STF), Bombay . Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No.1102 of 2007 Yusuf Mohsin Nulwalla (A-118) .... Appellant(s) vs. The State of Maharashtra, through CBI (STF), Bombay . Respondent(s) AND Criminal Appeal No.1687 of 2007 Kersi Bapuji Adajania (A-124) .... Appellant(s) vs. The State of Maharashtra, through CBI (STF), Bombay . Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No.596 of 2011 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1104 of 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No.1026 of 2012 WITH Criminal Appeal No.1001 of 2007 AND Criminal Appeal No.392 of 2011 ******** Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2007 Sanjay Dutt (A-117) .... Appellant(s) vs. The State of Maharashtra, through CBI (STF), Bombay . Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No.1102 of 2007 Yusuf Mohsin Nulwalla (A-118) .... Appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)502; AIR1996SC1744; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)207; (1996)98BOMLR513; 1996CriLJ2448; 1996(2)Crimes64(SC); JT1996(4)SC615; 1996(3)SCALE449; (1996)4SCC659; [1996]Supp1SCR189
ORDERHansaria, J.1. Bombay of yesterday, Mumbai of today : financial capital of the nation. It woke as usual on 12th March, 1993. People started for their places of work not knowing what was in their store. The terrorists and/or disruptionists, bent on breaking the backbone of the nation (for reasons which need not be gone into) had, however, hatched a well laid-out conspiracy to cripple the country by striking at its financial nerve. As Bombay set down to work, blasting of bombs, almost simultaneously, took place at important centers of commercial activities like Stock Exchange, Air India, Zaveri Bazar, Katha Bazar and many luxurious hotels. A shocked Bombay and a stunned nation first tried to provide succour to the victims as much as possible and then wanted to know the magnitude of the loss of life and property. It surpassed all imagination, as it was ultimately found that the blasts left more than 250 persons dead, 730 injured and property worth about Rs. 27 crores destroyed. By al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.2.1999 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No.349 of 1994, arising out of Arrah Nawada P.S. Case No.75 of 1994. By the said order, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge has refused to add charges under Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act,1908.2. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of fardbeyan of this petitioner, a case vide Arrah Nawada P.S. Case No.75 of 1994 was registered on 8.5.1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 452,324,307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. In the F.I.R., the petitioner alleged that on 8.5.1994 in the morning at about 8.00 A.M. unknown accused persons entered into the house of the petitioner and exploded bomb and three persons of the informant side were assaulted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2003(4)SC294; RLW2003(3)SC424; 2003(4)SCALE402; (2003)9SCC673; 2003(2)LC993(SC)
Santosh Hegde, J.1. All these appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Designate Judge at Ajmer, Rajasthan, made in TADA Special Case No. 8 of 1992. In the said case, the appellants herein along with some other accused were charged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIC.II, New Delhi for offences under Sections 3(3) and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TADA Act'), Section 120B IPC; and Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 9B and 9C of the Explosive Act. After trial the Designated Court held the appellants guilty of offences punishable under Section 120B IPC, Sections 3(3) and 6(1) of the TADA, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 120B of the IPC and Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act. Learned Judge also held A-5 guilty of offences punishable under Sections 9B(i)(b) and 9C of the Explosives Act. Based on the said conviction, he imposed a sentence of 5 y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1965All15; 1965CriLJ1
Uniyal, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 31-8-1962 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Meerut, acquitting Ram Pal respondent under Section 5 or the Explosive Substances Act. The respondent was tried for offences under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act as also under Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosives Act. He was convicted of the offence under Section 6 of the Explosives Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment but was acquitted of the charges under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act as well as Section 5 of the Explosives Act. While the State has acquiesced in his acquittal under Section 5 of the Explosives Act it has challenged his acquittal under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.2. The facts relating to the recovery or country made bomb material from the possession of the respondent on the night of the 8th January, 1960 have not been disputed. The report of Sri B. N. Dey, Inspector of Explosives, proved that the explosive mate...
Tag this Judgment!