SANJAY DUTT (A-117) v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH CBI (STF), BOMBAY

Citation: [2013] 16 S.C.R. 368

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: P. SATHASIVAM, B.S. CHAUHAN

Case summary

SANJAY DUTT (A-117) v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH CBI (STF), BOMBAY.pdf

Judgment text

[2013] 16 S. C. R. 368 SANJAY DUTT (A-117) v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH CBI (STF), BOMBAY (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1060 OF 2007 ETC. ) PART- 6 MARCH 21, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, JJ. ] Terrorist and Destructive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - ss. 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3), (4), 5 and 6 - Penal Code, 1860 - 120- 8, 302, 307, 326, 427, 435, 436, 201 and 212 - Arms Act, 1959 - ss. 3, 7 and 25(1-A}, (1-B)(a) - Explosives Act, 1884 - s. 98(1)(a)(b)(c) - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - ss. 3, 4(a}(b), 5 and 6 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - s. 4 - Prosecution under - Designated Court convicted A-117 under the provisions of Arms Act and sentenced him to 6 years imprisonment; convicted A-118 under the provisions of Arms Act and u/s. 201 /PC and sentenced him to 5 years Rl-A-124 was convicted u/s. 25(1- B)(a) of Arms Act and s. 201 /PC and sentenced to 2 years RI - Acquittal of A-120 - Conviction of A-53 u/s.

3(3) TADA and sentenced of 9 years RI - Conviction of A-119 u/ss. 3(3) and 5 of TADA and sentenced to 5 years RI - All the appellants-accused preferred appeal - The State filed appeal against acquittal of A-120 and cross-appeals in respect of A- 53 and A-119 - Held: Order of the Designated Court upheld as regards conviction/acquittal of the accused persons - However, in the circumstances of the case, sentence of A-117 reduced to 5 years RI from 6 years RI; sentence of A-124 reduced to 1 years RI from 2 years; and sentence of A-53 reduced to the period already undergone. CBI, (STF), BOMBAY s. 15 - Confessional statement under - Evidentiary value of... , Held: A confessional statement is a substantive piece of evidence and can be the sole basis for conviction, if recorded in accordance with the provisions of TA!

::A - A voluntary and truthful confessional statement requires no corroboration - But if such statement is to be used against the co-accused, the Court may look for corroboration as a matter of prvdence - Minor and curable irregularities in recording such statement do not affect the admissibility of the said evidence. s. 15 - Confessional statement - Retraction of... , Effect - Held: A voluntary and free confession even if retracted later, can be relied upon. s. 15 - Confessional statement under - Reliance on - Permissibility- When accused is acquitted of TADA charges - Held: Confession recorded u/s. 15 can be relied upon in case of a joint trial, even if the accused is subsequently acquitted of TADA charges. Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 27 - Scope of - Held: s. 27 is attracted even when identification is of the person, instead of place where the article is to be found. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: s. 4 - Scope of - Held: s.

4 is intended to attempt possible reformation of an offender instead of inflicting upon him the normal punishment - Such exercise of discretion needs a sense of responsibility, by taking into consideration the attendant circumstances - In the present case, circumstances of the case and nature of the offence are so serious that they do not warrant A-117 benefit of provisions of the Act. s. 4 - Effect of - Held: The provision will have overriding effect and shall prevail, if conditions prescribed therein are fulfilled - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 360. As a retaliation to demolition of Babri Masjid at Ayodhya 'DI' 'TM' and 'MD' all absconding accused (AA), formulated a conspiracy to commit terrorist acts in the city of Bombay. In pursuance of the said objective 'DI' (AA) sent arms and ammunitions from abroad and 'TM' (AA) received those arms and ammunitions in India.

Pursuant to the serial bom_b blast in the city of Bombay, a common charge of conspiracy was framed against all the coconspirators including the appellants in the present appeals. The appellants in appeal Nos. 1060/2007, 1102/2007 and 1687/2007 (A-117, A-118 and A-124), in addition to the common charge, were charged u/s. 3(3) for acquiring and keeping in their possession 3 AK-56 rifles, its ammunitions and one 9 min pistol and its cartridge~ and handgranades unauthorisedly, u/s. •5 and 6 of TADA, and u/ss. 3 and 7 r/w. ss. 25(1-A) and (1-S)(a) of Arms Act, 1959. The appellants (A-118 and 124) were also charged u/s. 201 . IPC for destroying the unauthorisedly possessed arms. Designated court convicted A-117 u/ss. 3 and 7 r/w. ss. 25(1-A)(1-B)(a) of Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced him to 6 years RI alongwith fine of Rs. 25,000/-, with default clause. He was acquitted of rest of the offences for which he was charged. A-118 was convicted u/ss. 3 and 7 r/w ss.

25(1 ·A)(1-B)(a) of Arms Act and was sentenced to 5 years RI and fine. He was further convicted u/s. 201 IPC and sentenced to 2 years RI. A-124 was also convicted u/ss. 3 and 7 r/w. ss. 25(1-A), (1-B)(a) of Arms Act and u/ s. 201 IPC and was sentenced to 2 years RI on each count and fine of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed. Hence the present appeals were filed by A-117, A-118 and A-124. The respondent-accused (A-120) in the appeal No. 596/2011, apart from common charge of conspiracy, was charged u/ss. 3(3), 5 and 6 of TADA and u/ss. 3 and 7 r/ SANJAYDUTT (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 371 CBI, (STF), BOMBAY w. ss. 25(1-A)(1-B)(a) of Arms Act, 1959. Designated Court acquitted him of all the charges. Hence the appeal was filed by CBI. , Accused No. 53 (A-53), in addition to common charge of conspiracy was charged u/ss. 3(3) and 6 of TADA. He. 8 was convicted by Designated Court u/s. 3(3) of TADA and sentenced to 9 years RI and fine of Rs. one lakh with default clause.

Hence the cross-appeals (appeal No. 1104/ 2007 and 1026/ 2012) were filed by the accused as well as CBI. The accused (A7119), apart from general charge of conspiracy, was also charged u/ss. 3(3), 5 and 6 of TADA. He was convicted u/s. 3(3) and 5 of TADA and was acquitted of the general charge of conspiracy. Hence the cross-appeals (Appeal Nos. 1001/2007 and 392/2011) by the accused as well as CBI. It was interalia contended that reliance on confessional statement of A-117 to the police was impermissible for the offences other than TADA offences, as he was acquitted of the charges under TADA; that identification of person, instead of the place where the article is to be found does not attract the provisions of s. 27 of Evidence Act; and that A~117 was entitled to benefit of s. 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Partly allowing the appeals by A-117, A-124 and A-53 a. nd dismissing the appeals by A-118 ·and 129 and the appeals by the State, the Court HELD: Criminal Appeal Nos.

1060 of 2007; 1102 of 2007 and 1687 of 2007: 1. 1. A confessional statement duly recorded by a Police Officer is a substantive piece of evidence and the same can be relied upon in the trial of such person or of the co-accused, abettor or conspirator if the requirements of Section 15 of TADA, and the rules framed thereunder ·are complied with. The police officer, before recording the confession, has to observe the requirement of Section 15(2) of TADA. A voluntary and truthful confessional statement recorded under Section 15 of TADA requires no corroboration. However, as a matter of prudence, the court may look for some corroboration if confession is to be used against co-accused. Whether such confession requires corroboration or not is a matter for the court to consider such confession on the facts and circumstances of each case.

If the confession made by an accused is voluntary and true, it is admissible against co-accused as a substantive piece of evidence and minor and curable irregularities in recording of confession, such as omission in obtaining the certificate of the competent officer with respect to the confession do not affect the admissibility of the said evidence. [Para 37) [427-E-H; 428-A-B] 1. 2. The corroboration can be found in the present case both in the nature of substantive evidence in the form of the confessions of the co-accused, as well as in the oral testimony of witnesses, including the eye witnesses to the incident who have identified the appellant-A-117, as well as the co-accused viz. , A-41 and A-53. Apart from the evidence contemporaneous to the arrest of the abovesaid three accused and the recovery made from A-124 and subsequent recovery at the instance of A-124 from A-120, are also relevant in respect of all the three appellants i. e. A-117, A-118 and A-124.

[Paras 56 and 57) [438-E-G] 1. 3. A voluntary and free confession, even if later retracted, can be relied upon. In the case of the appellant SANJAY DUTT (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 373 CBI, (STF), BOMBAY A-117, the retraction statement was not made at the first available opportunity. After the recording of his confession, within 10 days, the accused was releas~d on bail by the High . Court, and the accused remained free for a considerable period oftime. The retractions were made many months after the recording of the c. onfession. [Paras 38 and 39] [428-C-E] 1. 4. The appellant A-117 not only implicates himself in his confessional statement but also amongst others the appellant A-118. The confession was duly recorded by PW-193 who has proved the compliance with the provisions of law while recording the confession. The confession is a substantive piece of evidence and the confession can be the sole basis of conviction, if recorded in accordance with the provisions of TADA.

Further, the confessional statement establishes the unauthorized possession of weapons in the notified area of Bombay. The confession of the appellant (A-117) i~ also substantiated and corroborated with the confession of other co-accused, namely, A-53, A-41, A-89, A-40, A-118 and A-124. [Paras 20 and 21] [405-D-G] 1. 5. In view of the confessional statement of A-118, it is seen that the appellant (A-118), upon instructions, caused destruction of evidence related to an offence, which were unauthorisedly possessed automatic firearms/weapons in a notified area, attracting the provisions of the Arms Act. The confession of A-118 not only involves and implicates him, but also implicates A- 124. The confession of A-118 corroborates with the confession of A-117 as well as A-124. [Para 25] [414-F-G] 1. 6. The confession of appellant A-124 establishes the charge framed against A-124 that he knowingly destroyed evidence related to an offence.

A-124 was thereafter in unauthorized possession of the fire-arm. The abovesaid confession also corroborates in material particulars, the confession of A-118. [Para 28] [417-G] 1. 7. The sequence of events after the arrest of A-117 till the recovery of pistol from A-120, forms part of an 8 unbroken chain inseparably connected to each other. No foul play can be assumed in view of the fact that the events happened in quick succession one after the other, lending credibility and truthfulness to the whole episode. The role and the part played by A-118 and A-124 is also clear from the evidence relied upon by the prosecution in respect of A-117, which corroborates with each other in material particulars and is t. hus a substantive piece of evidence. [Para 58] (438-H; 439-A-B] 1. 8. The confessions of the appellants, viz.

, A-117, A- 118 and A-124 have been recorded by PW-193, who has proved that the said confessions were recorded after following the requirements of the provisions of Section 15 of TADA. Notwithstanding vigorous crossexamination of the witness (PW-193), he stood firmly without being shaken. [Para 29] [417-H; 418-A] Jayawant Dattatray Suryarao vs. State of Mharashtra (2001) 10 SCC 109: 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 54; Ravinder Singh @ Bittu vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) 9 SCC 55: 2002 (3) SCR 622; Mohmed Amin vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008) 15 SCC 49: 2008 (16) SCR 155; Jameel Ahmeid and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan (2003) 9 SCC 673; Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur vs. State of Maharashtra (2010) 14 SCC 641: 2009 (12) SCR 1093; State of Maharashtra vs. Bharat Chaganlal Raghani (2001) 9 SCC 1: 2001 (3) SCR 840; Manjit Singh vs. CBI (2011) 11 sec 578: 2011 (1) SCR 997; Wariyam Singh vs. State of U. P. (1995) 6 SCC 458: 1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 807; S. N. Dube vs. N. B. Bhoir and Ors.

(2000) 2 SCC 254: 2000 (1) SCR 200; Lal Singh vs. State CBI, (STF), BOMBAY of Gujarat (2001) 3 SCC 221: 2001 (1) SCR 111; State of Maharashtra vs. Bharat Chaganlal Raghani, (2001) 9 SCC 1: 2001 (3) SCR 840; Devender Pal Singh vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2002) 5 SCC 234: 2002 (2) SCR 767; Ravinder Singh vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) 9 SCC 55: 2002 (3) SCR 622; Nazir Khan vs. State of Delhi (2003) 8 SCC 461: 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 884; Sukhwant Singh vs. State (2003) 8 SCC 90; Mohd. Ayu/J Dar vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2010) 9 sec 312: 2010 (8) SCR 916; Manjit Singh vs. CBI, (2011) 11 sec 578: 2011 {1) SCR 997 - relied on. 2. It cannot be said that u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act, only recovery of object is permissible and identification of the person instead of the place where the article is to be found cannot attract the provisions of Section 27. The rod and the spring recovered from the possession of A-124 were sent to FSL for examination.

The experts opined that the said articles correspond to that of an AK-56 type rifle, but did not correspond to similar components used in AK- 47 rifle. The requisition and the report show that the seal on the packet containing the object was perfect and had not been tempered with. In that event, the said anomaly may not be of much consequence. The prosecution has also established through one independent witness PW- 265 that A-118 and A-124 further made statement to the police and pursuant whereof the gas cylinder used in destroying AK-56 was recovered at the instance of A-124 and some of the ammunition of AK-56 were recovered at the instance of A-118. [Paras 61 and 63 to 65] [449-F-G; 451-G-H; 452-B·D] Jaffar Hussain Dastagir vs. State of Maharashtra (1969) 2 SCC 872: 1970 (2) SCR 332; State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600: 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 79 - relied on. 3.

Even if the accused was to be acquitted of the TADA charges, still in a joint trial, the confessions recorded under Section 15 of TADA can be relied upon in respect of the said accused. The stage at which the trial can be separated is at the stage of cognizance and not subsequently. In the present case, at the time of taking cognizance by the Designated Court, there were sufficient evidence against the appellants to proceed against them in the joint trial. In the case of A-117, the Designated Court rightly took a view on the basis of his own confession that the weapons were not acquired for any terrorist activity but they were acquired for selfdefence, therefore, acquittal was rightly recorded in respect of charge under Section 5 of TADA.

In *Sanjay Dutt (//) case wherein this Court considered the entire case of the appellant-A-117 at that stage and opined that although the offence was complete by the unauthorized 0 possession of a weapon in the notified area, a defence would be available to the accused to be taken at the time of the trial and the Trial Court can consider the same by virtue of Section 12 of TADA. [Paras 67 and 70] [452-G- H; 453-A-C; 460-D-E] *Sanjay Dutt vs. State (II) (1994) 5 SCC 410: 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 263; Prakash Kumar@ Prakash Bhutto vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 2 sec 409: 2005 (1) SCR 408 - relied on. 4. 1. The Probation of Offenders Act, was enacted with a view to provide for the release of offenders of certain categories on Probation or alter due admonition and for matters connected therewith. The object of the Act is to prevent the conversion of offenders into obdurate criminals as a result of their association with hardened criminals.

The scope of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is much wider. It applies to any person found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. [Paras 79 and 80] [463-C-D, G] SANJAY DUTT (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 377 CBI, (STF), BOMBAY 4. 2. Section 360 Cr. P. C. does not provide for any role for probation officers in assisting the courts in relation to supervision and other matters while the Probation of Offenders Act does make such a provision. While Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act states that a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under Section . 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to the conviction of an offence under any law. Cr. P. C. does not contain parallel provision. Two statutes with such significant differences could not be intended to co-exist at the same time in the same area. Such co-existence would lead to anamolous results.

The intention to retain the provisions of Section 360 CrP. C. and Probation of Offenders Act as applicable at the same time in a given area cannot be gathered from the provisions of s. 360 or any other provisions of Cr. P. C. 0 [Para 81] [463-H; 464-A-C] 4. 3. Sub-section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act contains the words "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force". The above non obstante clause points to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act would have an overriding effect and shall prevail if the other conditions prescribed therein are fulfilled.

Those conditions being (i) the accused is found guilty of having committed an offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life; (ii) the Court finding him guilty is of the opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, it is expedient to release him on probation; (iii) the accused in such an event enters into a bond with or without sureties to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period not exceeding three years as the court may direct and, in the meantime, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The underlying object of the above provisions obviously is that an accused person should be given a chance of reformation, which he would lose in case he is incarcerated in prison and associates with hardened criminals.

The provisions of the said Act are beneficial provisions and, therefore, they should receive wide 8 interpretation and should not be read in a restricted sence. [Paras 83 and 84] [464-E-H; 465-A-C] 4. 4. Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act applies to all kinds·of offenders, whether under or above the age of 21 years. This section is intended to attempt possible reformation of an offender instead of inflicting upon him the normal punishment of his crime. Such exercise of discretion needs a sense of responsibility. The section itself is clear that before applying the same, this Court should carefully take into consideration the attendant circumstances. The circumstances and the nature of the offence are so serious, that they do not warrani A-117 the benefit of the provisions of the. Probation of Offenders Act, however, taking note of various aspects, the sentence is reduced to minimum period, viz. , 6 years to 5 years. [Paras 85 and 86] [465-D-G] Ratanlal vs.

State of Punjab (1964) SCR 676; Chhani vs. State of U. P. (2006) 5 SCC 396: 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 305; /shar Oas vs. State ofPunjab 1973 (2) SCC 65: 1972 (3) SCR 312 - relied on. Ved Prakash vs. State of Haryana 1981 (1) SCC 447: 1981 (1) SCR 1279; Jugal Kishore vs. State of Bihar (1972) 2 SCC 633: 1973 (1) SCR 875 - referred to. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction and sentence awarded to A-118 by the Designated Court is confirmed. [Para 87] [466-A-B] SANJAY oun (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 379 CBI, (STF), BOMBAY Sanjay Dutt vs. State (/) (1994) 5 SCC 402: 1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 729;Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569: 1994 (2) SCR 375; Sanjay Dutt vs. State (1994) 5 SCC 410: 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 263 - referred to. Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijayal (1990) 4 SCC 76: 1990 (3) SCR 633 - cited. 6. The Designated Court has convicted A-124 u/ss. 3 and 7 r. w ss. 25(1-A)(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, as well as u/s.

201 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 2 years on both the counts separately. A perusal of all the materials relating to A-124 shows that the Designated Court itself convicted and sentenced A-124 under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act along with Section 201 of IPC. While clarifying the same, it is held that there is no substantive evidence for convicting him u/s. 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, though the Designated Court has referred to the same while awarding sentence to him. Also, considering his age, i. e. 82 years as on date and taking note of the fact that the minimum sentence for the offence u/s. 25(1-B)(a) being one year, wl:lile confirming his conviction, the sentence awarded to A-124 u/s. 25(1· B)(a) as well as u/s. 201 IPC is reduced to 1 year which shall run concurrently. [Para 88] [466-B-E] Criminal Appeal No. 596 of 2011: 7. 1.

The respondent A-120 has not made any confession and the co-accused A-125 relied on by the prosecution has also not made any confession and even the confessional statements of other co-accused failed to disclose any involvement of A-120 in any manner. The only allegation against the present accused was that of seizure of a box coritaining a pistol from his house. The Designated Court, after considering the evidence of panch witness (PW-211) regarding the statement made by A-125 and after finding that there was lot of variation in their statements and bereft of materials about the role of A-120 and further finding that different stories had been projected by the prosecution, refused to accept the same. After analyzing the entire statement of A-125, the trial court came to a conclusion that the same were insufficient to connect A-120 as being the person who had received the same pistol and rounds. [Para 94) [470- D-G] 7. 2.

The Designated Court, has rightly observed that mere recoveries of a . 9mm pistol and the rounds from the bungalow of A-120 would not be sufficient to connect him with the said articles. It is settled law that the recoveries made must be found to have been made as a consequence ofhe statement made by the accused in custody. If the nexus in between is not established, the said statement made would be inadmissible in evidence. The Designated Court, after considering the well settled principles and the materials placed concluded that "it will be further necessary to say that scrutiny of the evidence also does not reveal A-120 having purchased . 9mm pistol and rounds ......

" The Designated Court has also concluded that even if the statement made by A-125 is acceptable, in the absence of any supporting oral and documentary evidence and taking note of the improvement made by panch witness as well as in the statements of witnesses stage by stage "hardly there would be any evidence to connect A-120 with the relevant contraband articles" and rightly discarded the same. In the light of the categorical finding by the trial court and after analyzing the materials placed by the prosecution, the conclusion reached by trial court is correct and with the above said insufficient evidence, the order of acquittal cannot be lightly interfered in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal, filed by CBI, fails. [Paras 95 and 96) [470-G-H; 471-A-E] CBI, (STF), BOMBAY Criminal Appeal Nos. 1104/2007 and 1026/2012: 8. 1. A perusal of the confessional statement of coaccused A-41 shows that the appr:'.

lant (A-53) helped the co-accused persons to look for a garage where the weapons could be off-loaded and after that they were to 8 be distributed to various persons. [Para 104) [479-A-B] 8. 2. Upon perusal of the entire evidence, it. is clear that the appellant-A-53 was closely assoC:iated with 'TM' (AA) and 'AIK' (AA). Further, inspite of the unwillingness shown by his partner A-40, the appellant helped the coaccused search for garages where the weapons were to be off-loaded and concealed whereafter they were to· be distributed to A-117 and other persons. In addition to the same, the appellant was also associated with co-accused even after the blasts, which fact is clearly discernible from 0 the confession of A-96 wherein she stated that after coming back to her house, her father informed her that A-53 had come and gave Rs. 50,000/- for help. [Para 106] [480-E-H] . 8. 3.

It is not correct to say that only on the ground of acquaintance with the main conspirators, the appellant has been erroneously convicted under Section 3(3) TADA. It was on the instructions of 'AIK' (AA) that the arms were delivered to A-117 and because of the relationship of 'AIK' (AA) and 'TM' (AA) and 'DI' (AA), it ·establishes a strong link between A-53 and 'AIK' (AA). Materials relied on by the prosecution clearly prove relationship between 'AIK' (AA) and A-53. Further, their relationship cannot be simply construed as a business relationship. The materials placed on record by the prosecution, relied on and accepted by the Special Judge show that the appellant was guilty of distributing arms to persons other than A-117. The finding recorded by the trial Judge was that A-53 not only distributed weapons to A-117 but also to third parties. [Para 107] [479-A-B] State vs. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253: 1999 (3) SCR 1 referred to. 8. 4.

The CBI has successfully placed materials to show that the appellant was responsible for arranging garages for the storage of weapons. In the confessional 8 statement of A-41, in categorical terms it was asserted that A-53, the present appellant, along with A-41 and A- 139 searched for garages at different places in Mumbai where the weapons could be off-loaded and after that they were to be distributed to various persons as suggested by Anees Ibrahim. The confessional statement of A-41 also shows that the appellant helped the coaccused persons to look for garages. In such circumstance, it cannot be claimed that at no point of time A-53 was ever aware of what was to be stored in the garages. [Para 108) [481-E-H] 8. 5. The Designated Court, on going through the evidence of the officer who recorded the confession of A- '53, the procedure followed, opportunity given to the appellant, rejected the similar objection raised before him.

In view thereof, there is no flaw in the procedure while recording the confession of the appellant. [Para 109) [482- 8) 8. 6. The materials available establish involvement of A-53 only to the extent of the smaller conspiracy and the Designated Court was justified in arriving at such conclusion. Hence, the appeal filed by the State is liable to be dismissed. [Para 11 OJ [482-D-E] 8. 7. Taking note of all the aspects viz. appellant is a sick person; he has ~ stents in his arteries; he is a diabetic coupled with a serious heart ailment; he has already faced protracted trial for 13 % years on day to day basis; his entire business and goodwill has been lost; he nas already served about 6 % (six and a half) years and SANJAY DUTT (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 383 CBI, (STF), BOMBAY of the fact that the CBI was not able to establish the charge relating to major conspiracy and taking note of the fact that the minimum sentence prescribed is 5 years, while confirming the conviction, th.

: sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. [Para 112] [483-D] Criminal Appeal Nos. 1001/2007 and 392/2011: 9. 1. The Designated Court convicted the appellant (A- 119) u/s. 3(3) and Section 6 of TADA only on the basis of the confessional statement of A-89 and the evidence of PW-283 (watchman in the building). Admittedly, the appellant, at no point of time, had made any confession admitting her guilt. Equally, it is not in dispute that no recovery has been affected from her house. The only incriminating circumstance against her is the statement ' of A-89 that while handing over a plastic bag, he mentioned that it contains AK-56 rifle and other arms. It is also his claim that after knowing the contents, she received the same and kept it in her house. In view of these aspects, there is no case insofar as the main conspiracy against her and the Designated Court has rightly acquitted her of the main charge of main conspiracy.

However, upon perusal of the entire evidence, the judgment passed by the Designated Court is upheld to the extent of Charge u/ss. 3(3) and 6 of TADA. [Paras 124 and 125] [492-E-H; 493-A] 9. 2. In view of the minimum sentence of 5 years prescribed under Sections 3(3) and 6 of TADA, the conviction and sentence as awarded by the Designated Court is confirmed, [Para 126) [493-B-C] Mohd. Ayub Dar vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2010) 9 sec 312: 2010 (8) SCR 916 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 1994 (2) Suppl. · SCR 729 relied on Para S(o) 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 263 relied on Para 67 1994 (2) SCR 375 relied on Para 5(p) 2005 (1) SCR 408 relied on Para 67 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 263 relied on Para 9 1990 (3) SCR 633 relied on Para 10 2008 (16) SCR 155 relied on Paras 33, 41, 53 2001 (5) Suppl.

SCR 54 relied on Para 31 2002 (3) SCR 622 relied on Para 32 (2003) 9 sec 673 relied on Para 34 2009 (12) SCR 1093 relied on Para 36 2001 (3) SCR 840 relied on Para 40 2011 (1) SCR 997 relied on Para 42 1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 807 relied on Para 44 2000 (1) SCR 200 relied on Para 45 2001 (1) SCR 111 relied on Para 46 2001 (3) SCR 840 relied on Para 47 2002 (2) SCR 767 relied on Para 48 2002 (3) SCR 622 relied on Para 49 (2003) 9 sec 673 relied on Para 50 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 884 relied on Para 51 (2003) 8 sec 90 relied on Para 52 2010 (8) SCR 916 relied on Para 54 2011 (1) SCR 997 relied on Para 55 CBI, (STF), BOMBAY 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 79 relied on Para 61 1970 (2) SCR 332 relied on Para 62 1981 (1) SCR 1279 relied on Para 77 1973 (1) SCR 875 relied on Para 78 / (1964) SCR 676 relied on Para 79 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 305 relied on Para 80 1972 (3) SCR 312 relied on Para 84 1999 (3) SCR 1 referred to Para 107 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No (s). 1060 of2007 etc.

From the Judgment and Order date 31. 07. 2007 of the presiding Officer of the Designated Court under TADA (P) Act, 1987 for Bomb Blast Cases, Greater Bombay, Maharshtra in Bombay Blast Case No. 1 of 1993 WITH Crl. A. Nos. 1102, 1687 of 2007, 596 of 2011, 1104 of 2007, 1026 of 2012, 1001 of 2007 & 392 of 2011 Harin P. Raval, ASG, Harish N. Salve, Surender Singh, Ranjit Kumar, Mukul Gupta, Sr. Advs. , Hari Sanker K. , Vikas Singh Jangra, B. H. Marlapalle, Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Kuna! Cheema, Satyakaam, Anubhav Kumar Anando Mukherjee, Harsh N. Parekh, Annirudh, Arvind Kr. Sharma, Ajay Sharma, Sanjay jain, P. Parmeswaran, Ms. Anjali Jha, Advs. , with them for the appearing parties. The Judment of the Court was delivered by P. SATHASIVAM, J. Criminal Appeal No. 1060, 1102 and 1687 of 2007. 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 abovesaid appeals are directed against the final judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28. 11. 2006 and 31. 07. 2007 respectively 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 o. utside India in Dubai (U. A. E.

) Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/oc, were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist acts with an intent to overawe the Government as by law established, to strike terror in the people, to alienate sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people, i. e.

Hindus and Muslims by using bombs, dynamites, handgrenades and other explosive substances like ROX or inflammable substances or fire-arms like AK-56 rifles, carbines, pistols and other lethal weapons, in such a manner as to cause or as likely to cause death of or injuries to any person or persons, loss of or damage to and disruption of supplies of services essential to the life of the community, and to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, you all agreed to smuggle fire-arms, ammunition, detonators, handgrenades and high explosives like ROX into India and to distribute the same amongst yourselves and your SANJAY DUTT (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR.

387 men of confidence for the purpose of committing terrorist acts and for the said purpose to conceal and storE;l all these arms, ammunition and explosives at such ·safe places and amongst yourselves and with your men of confidence till its use for committing terrorist acts and achieving the objects of criminal conspiracy and to dispose off the same as need arises. To organize training camps in Pakistan and in India to import and undergo weapons training in handling of arms, ammunitions and explosives to commit terrorist acts. To harbour and conceal terrorists/ co-conspirators, and also to aid, abet and knowingly facilitate the terrorist acts and/or any act preparatory to the · commission of terrorist acts and to render any assistance financial or otherwise for accomplishing the object of the conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, to do and commit any other illegal acts as were necessary for achieving the 0 aforesaid objectives of the criminal conspiracy and that on. 12. 03.

1993 were successful in causing bomb explosions at Stock Exchange Building, Air India Building, Hotel Sea Rock at Sandra, Hotel Centaur at Juhu, Hotel Centaur at Santacruz, Zaveri Bazaar, Katha Bazaar, Century Bazaar at Worli, Petrol Pump adjoining Shiv Sena Bhavan, Plaza Theatre and in lobbing handgrenades at Macchimar Hindu Colony, Mahim and at Bay-52, Sahar International Airport which left more than 257 persons dead, 713 injured and property worth about Rs. 27 crores destroyed, and attempted to cause bomb explosions at Naigaum Cross Road and. Dhanji Street, all in the city of Bombay and its . suburbs i. e. within Greater Bombay.

And thereby committed offences punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and Section 120-B of IPC read with Sections 3(2)(i)(ii}, 3(3), (4), 5 and 6 of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and read with Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436, 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code and offences under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25 (1-A), (1- B)(a} of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 9B (1)(a)(b}(c} of the Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 3, 4(a){b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and within my cognizance.

" In addition to the above-said principal charge of conspiracy, the appellants were also charged on other counts 8 which are as under: Sanjay Dutt (A-117): At head Secondly; The appellant, in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy and during the period from January, 1993 to April, 1993, agreed to keep in his possession and acquired 3 AK-56 rifles and its ammunition, one 9mm pistol and its cartridges and handgrenades, unauthorisedly, which were part of the consignments smuggled into the country by Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar and his associates knowingly and intentionally that these were smuggled into the country for the purpose of committing terrorists acts and that he thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA.

At head Thirdly; The appellant, by doing the aforesaid act, unauthorisedly, in Greater Bombay which is specified as a Notified Area under Clause (f) of Sub Section (1) of Section 2 of TADA and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5 of TADA. At head Fourthly; The appellant possessed the above mentioned arms and ammunitions with an intent to aid terrorists and contravened the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 1962, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Explosives Rules, 2008 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6 of TADA. At head Fifthly; The appellant, by doing the aforesaid act, committed an offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25(1-A) (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959.

Yusuf Nulwalla (A-118): At head Secondly; The appellant acquired AK-56 Rifles and its carridges and one 9mm pistol and its cartridges 8 which were smuggled into the country for committing terrorist acts and destroyed the said AK-56 Rifle with the assistance of Kersi Adajania (A-124) and entrusted him the 9mm pistol and its cartridges for safe custody and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA. At head Thirdly; The appellant i:! Cquired the abovementioned arms and ammunitions from the house of Sanjay Dutt (A-117) and possessed the same, unauthorisedly, in a notified area of Greater Bombay and o thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5 of TADA. At head Fourthly; The appellant acquired and possessed the abovementioned arms and ammunitions and failed to give information to Police/Magistrate with an intent to aid terrorists and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6 of TADA.

At head Fifthly; The appellant, by doing the aforesaid act, committed an offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25(1-A), (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959. At head Sixthly; The appellant caused destruction of the abovementioned arms and ammunitions with an intention to screen him and other co-conspirators from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC. Kersi Adajania (A-124): At head Secondly; The appellant aided and abetted · Yusuf Nulwalla (A-118) in destroying AK-56 rifle and disposing of 9mm pistol and its cartridges which were smuggled into the country for committing terrorist acts and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA. . At head Thirdly; In the first week of April, 1993, the appellant had in his possession one AK-56 rifle, one 9 mm pistol and its rounds in a notified area of Bombay and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5 of TADA.

At head Fourthly; The appellant possessed the said arms and ammunitions with an intention to aid terrorists and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 6 of TADA. At head Fifthly; The appellant, by possessing the abovementioned arms and ammunitions, unauthorisedly, committed an offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25(1-A), (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959. At head Sixthly; The appellant caused destruction of the abovementioned AK-56 rifle, 9mm pistol and its ammunitions which were smuggled into the country for commission of terrorist acts with the intention of screening himself and the other co-conspirators from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC. 4.

The appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the above said charges as under: Conviction and Sentence: Sanjay Dutt (A-117): A-117 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25(1-A), (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to suffer RI for 6 years along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for . a period of 6 months. However, the appellant was not found guilty of all other offences for which he was charged and, accordingly, acquitted for all the said offences. Yusuf Mohsin Nulwalla (A-118): (i} A-118 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25(1-A}, (1-B}(a} of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to RI for 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for a period of 6 months. (ii) The appellant has been further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to suffer . RI for 2 years.

However, the aforesaid accused being found not 0 guilty of all other offences for which he was charged at trial. Kersi Bapuji Adajania (A-124): (i) A-124 has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25(1-A}, (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to suffer RI for 2 years alongwith a fine of R. s. 25,000/-, in default, to suffer further RI for a period of 6 months. (ii) The appellant has been further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 oflPC mentioned at head sixthly and sentenced to suffer RI for 2 years. However, the aforesaid accused also being not found guilty of all other offences for which he was charged at trial. Brief Facts:- 5. Before adverting to the detailed analysis oftheevidence · and the contentions urged, the story of the prosecution is as . under: (a) Babri Masjid at Ayodhya was demolished on 06. 12. 1992. After its demolition, violence broke out throughout the country.

Tiger Memon (AA) and Dawood Ibrahim (AA), a resident of Dubai, in order to take revenge of the said demolition, formulated a conspiracy to commit terrorist act in the city of Bombay. In pursuance of the said object, Dawood Ibrahim agreed to send arms and ammunitions from abroad. Tiger Memon, in association with his men, particularly, the accused persons, received those arms and ammunitions through sea-coasts of Bombay. The evidence on record establishes that the said consignment was a result of a conspiracy between Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, Mohammed Dosa and Tiger Memon (all three absconding accused). (b) On 15. 01. 1993, Samir Hingora (A-53), Hanif Kandawala (A-40), Ibrahim Musa Chauhan@Baba (A-41) and Abu Salem (A-139) - then absconding, came to the residence of the appellant (A-117) at Pali Hill, Sandra, Bombay and told him that they would deliver the weapons tomorrow i. e. , on 16. 01. 1993. On 16. 01.

1993, A-53, A-41 and A-139 delivered 3 AK-56 Rifles and 250 rounds of ammunitions and some handgrenades at the residence of A-117. On 18. 01. 1993, out of the abovesaid 3 AK-56 Rifles and ammunitions, 2 rifles and some ammunition were taken away by co-accused persons including one Mansoor Ahmed (A-89). (c) On 12. 03. 1993, bomb explosions took place at various places in Bombay causing death of 2~7 persons, injuries to 713 and destruction of property worth about Rs. 27 crores. (d) On 18. 04. 1993, A-89 was taken in police custody whereas A-117 was arrested from the Mumbai International Airp~rt on 19. 04. 1993 upon his arrival from Mauritius. On the same day, at about 15:30-15:40 hrs. , he made a statement to the police that the rifle and the pistol and its rounds thereof have been kept with A-118 and that he would identify him and his house in Dongri, Umarkhari. He also led the police party to the SANJAY DUTT (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 393 house of A-118 at 15:45 hrs.

When wherebaouts of A-118 were searched, it was found that he was detained by the Dongri Police Station in connection with the non-renewal of Arms licence. (e) A-118 was summoned from Dongri Police Station and produced before DCB-CID. He made a statement mentioning the name of A-124 and led the police party to his house. (f) During investigation,A-124 produced a spring and a rod remanent of the burnt AK-56 and also made a further statement . regarding 9mm pistol and led the police party to A-125. A-125 made a statement and after that the police party proceeded to the house of A-120. (g) A-120 produced a bag containing box wherein the pistol and its cartridges were found. His statement was recorded and the articles were seized and a Panchnama was drawn. (h) All the above facts form part of the complaint culminated into the registration of a Local Act Case (LAC) bearing No. 21 of 1993 in respect of the abvoesaid 5 persons, namely, A-117, A-118, A-124, A-125 and A-120.

The said complaint mentioned that the investigation being carried out in furtherance of C. R. No. 70 of 1993. The sequence of events after the arrest of A- 117 till the recovery of pistol from A-120 formed part of an unbroken chain inseparably connected with each other. (i) On 22. 04. 1993, Mr. Krishan Lal Bishnoi, the then DCP (PW~193), who was investigating Worli Blast from 13. 03. 1993 ·was withdrawn from investigation. On 26. 04. 1993, A-117 expressed his desire to make a confession and, accordingly, he was produced before PW-193, who after recording the preliminary statement (First part), awarded him a period of 48 hours for cooling off. U) On 27. 04. 1993, the confession of A-118 was recorded by Mr. Bishnoi (PW-193) in first part and a further time for reflection was awarded to him. (k) On 28. 04. 1993, PW-193 recorded the second part of the confession of A-117. Similarly, on 29. 04. 1993, the confession of A-118 was recorded by PW-193 which remained un-retracted. (I) On 03. 05.

1993, A-117 was sent to the judicial custody. On 05. 05. 1993, A-117 filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court and the High Court released him on interim bail with the direction that the bail granted to A-117 would continue till the filing of charge sheet in the Designated Court and after that the said Court would consider his bail application. (m) Between 18th and 20th May, 1993, and 24th and 26th May, 1993, confessions of A-53 and A-89 respectively were recorded by PW-193. (n) On 04. 11.. 1993, a consolidated charge sheet was filed against all the accused persons including the appellants (A-117, A-118 and A-124). On 19. 06. 1994, A-117 applied for bail before the Designated Court. By order dated 04. 07. 1994, the Designated Court dismissed the said application. (o) Against the said order, A-117 filed a special leave petition before this Court and prayed for grant of bail. After hearing the bail petition, this Court, by order dated 18. 08. 1994 in Sanjay Dutt vs.

State (/), (1994) 5 SCC 402, referred the matter to the Constitution Bench on the question of interpretation and construction of the provisions of TADA, namely,. Sectioa 5 as well as Section 20. By order dated 09. 09. 1994, the said reference was answered by the Constitution Bench in Sanjay Dutt vs. State (II), (1994) 5 SCC 410. After. the reference was answered, the matter was placed before the regular Bench for consideration of the bail application. By order dated 23. 09. 1994, this Court rejected the application for bail filed by A-117. On 09. 11. 1994, A-117 filed detailed retraction. (p) In June, 1995, in view of the directions of this Court in Kartar Singh vs.

State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569, the Central and State Government set up a Review Committee in order to individually review the cases of the accused persons involved in the Bombay bomb blasts case to consider whether or not the provisions of TADA are applicabie against individual accused persons and whether or not any of the accused persons ought to be entitled to bail? On 08. 08. 1995, the report of the Review Committee recommended that the public prosecutor, on certain parameters, may recommend certain cases for bail. The case of A-117 was one such case that was considered for grant of bail by the public prosecutor. The said report was filed by the prosecution before the trial Court on 09. 08. 1995. The CBI, in M. A. No. 312 of 1995, filed an application before the Designated Court stating that they have no objection for grant of bail to A-117 and 11 others. (q) On 11. 09.

1995, in view of the report of the Review Committee, A-117 renewed his prayer for bajl before the Designated Court but the Designated Court again dismissed the said application. In September, 1995, challenging the said order, A-117 filed Criminal Appeal No. 1196 of 1995 before this Court and prayed for grant of bail. On 16. 10. 1995, this Court granted bail to him till the completion of his trial. (1995 (6) sec 189). (r) By order dated 28. 11. 2006 and 31. 07. 2007, the appellants (A-117, A-118 and A-124) were convicted and sentenced by the Designated Court as mentioned earlier. Evidence 6. The prosecution relied on the follGwing evidence which is in the form of:- (i) the evidence of their own confessions; (ii) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (coaccused) (iii) Deposition of Prosecution witnesses, viz. , - Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Pandharinath H.

Shinde (PW-218)- who was on guard duty at the bungalow of Sunil Dutt, Manohar Vasudev Shirdokar (PW-219)-Sr. Inspector of Police, Suresh S. Walishetty (PW-680), Rajaram Ramchandra Joshi (PW-475), API, Panch Witness Shashikant Rajaram Sawant (PW-211), Gangaram Bajoji (PW-265)-independent witness and Karmegam Algappan, PW-472 attached with computer cell of MTNL, Malabar Hill and; (iv) documentary evidence. Submissions made by Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for the appellant (A-117) 7. Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for A-117, at the foremost, submitted that reliance on the confessional statement made by A-117 is impermissible. He pointed out that the contention that the judgments of this Court have held that the prosecution can rely on the confession of an accused made before a police officer in every case where the accused is charged of a TADA offence, as long as the trial is joint, has been· misconceived.

He also pointed out that if the language of the provisions led to a situation that a confession to the police becomes admissible irrespective of the fate of the TADA chartJe, then it would lead to invidious discriminc;ition between the accused, who were charged (but acquitted) under TADA along with oth~r offences and those who were accused only of non-TADA offences. 8. Mr. Harish Salve further pointed out that in Prakash Kumar@_Prakash Bhutto vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 2 SCC 409, it was contended before the Court that "rigours of Section 12 are discriminatory and attract the wrath of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as it empowers the Designated Court to try and convict the accused for the offences committed under any other law along with the offences committed under TADA thereby depriving the rights available to the accused under the ordinary law. " This contention was rejected by holding that "Section 12 is to take care of the oF.

i:;nces connected with or incidental to terrorist activities. The other offences being connected and inextricably intertwined with the terrorist act. " 9. He further pointed out that a Bench of five Judges of this · Court in Sanjay Dutt vs. State (1994) 5 SCC 410, had observed in paragraph 14 that "the construction made of any provision of this Act must therefore be to promote the object of its enactment to enable the machinery to deal effectively with the persons involved in, and the associated with, terrorist and disruptive activities while ensuring that any person not in that category should not be subject to the rigors of the stringent provisions of the .. .. Act. It must, therefore, be borne in mind that any person who is being dealt with and prosecuted iri accordance with the provisions of the TADA must ordinarily have the opportunity to show that he does not belong to the category of persons governed by TADA.

Such a course would permit exclusion from its ambit of persons not intended to be covered by it...... " In paragraph 17, this Court cited with approval an earlier decision, viz. , Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijayal, (1990) 4 SCC 76 in ~hich it was observed that "when a law visits a person with serious penal consequences, extra care must be taken to ensure that those whom the Legislature did not intend to become by the express language of the Statute are not roped in by stretching the language of the law. " This Court read down the provisions of 1 Section 5 of TADA and held that the presumption under the said section in relation to possession of weapons was a rebuttable presumption and an accused c_ould always establish his innocence in relation to that statute. 10.

According to him, only where the transactions in respect of which an accused is convicted are interrelated · inextricably with the transactions which fall under TADA, then Section 12 would enable the prosecution to rely upon the confession of the accused made to a police officer. He further pointed out that it would be a travesty to apply this principle in the present case. 11. By poining out the confession of the appellant (A-117), learned senior counsel contended that even if we believe the statements made, it would simply establish a case of violation of the Arms Act, there is no suggestion of any terrorist act. On the contrary, the act was the resultant of the personal as well as the security need of the family of the appellant. He further contended that judicial notice must be taken of the state of affairs in Bombay during the post Babri Masjid demolition period, particularly, in January, 1993.

It is further pointed out that the Legislature did not intend to cover such persons ever in a law dealing with terrorism. The victims of terrorism of a kind (vicious communal riots) cannot and should not be treated at par with perpetrators. 12. He further pointed out that the unchallenged finding of the trial Court in the present case is that the alleged acquisition of 2 illegal weapons by the appellant (A-117) was at a different po~nt of time, much before even the conspiracy in relation to the Bombay blasts was commenced. He further contended that the provocation for the alleged acquisition was not the conspiracy or any act or omission related to the Bombay blasts, but related to an entirely different event, i. e. , the riots in January 1993 and the appellant (A-117) allegedly, out of fear for his own life and for the security of his family, acquired those weapons.

Under such circumstances, the question of any connection leave alone the acquisition of weapons or any act or omission relating to the Bombay blasts is conspicuous by its absence. 13. With regard to the evidence in order to establish that the appellant was in conversation with Anees over phone, learned senior counsel contended that the alleged confession of Samir Hingora (A-53) as well as of Hanif Kandawala (A-40) (his partner) to the effect that the appellant (A-117) was in conversation with Anees relates to A-53's visit to the house of the appellant (A-117) on the night of Hith January whereas the call records relied on were of 16th January, 1993. 14. Learned senior counsel also pointed out that the 8 prosecution has not appealed the findings of the Designated Court and the alleged confession which suggested that the appellant (A-117) was· in conversation with Anees is, in fact, unbelievable.

One significant reason for the same is that it does not explain as to how Samir could have known that the appellant was in conversation with someone on a landline telephone which was inside his house. This attempt of the prosecution to unnecessarily create prejudice against the appellant (A~117) is baseless and, therefore, merits summary rejection. The judgment of this Court in Sanjay Dutt's case (supra) dealt with a pure interpretation of Section 5 of TADA. It clearly lays down that the possession of a weapon is not per se a TADA offence. Section 5 mearly raises a presumption that a person, who is in possession of unauthorized arms or ammunitions of the specified variety, would be liable to be punished under TADA. According to him, this Court, in fact, read down the plain language of Section 5 to make it applicable only as a presumptive rule of evidence.

This issue is no longer open because it has been conclusively found that the alleged acquisition of the weapon had absolutely nothing to do with any of the alleged terrorist activities of the other accused in the conspiracy. L:earned senior counsel for the appellant further contended that the State has not filed an appeal in the matter, hence, stands concluded. 15. In addition to the above arguments, Mr. Surendra Singh/le~rned senior counsel for A-118 contended that everything was manufactured at the Crime Branch Police Station. He further contended that even if A-118 was having possession of AK 56 rifle, memorandum for the same was not signed by him and Sections 12 and 15 of TADA have no application in his case. He further submitted that his confession is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and his alleged statement is compelled one which is hit by Article 21 of the Constitution. 16. Similar to the contentions of Mr. Salve and Mr. Singh, 8 Mr. B. H.

Marlapalle, learned senior counsel for A-124 also contended that there was no constructive possession of any weapon and A-124 was not having any knowledge about it. He also contended that he was charged only under the Arms act and IPC which has nothing to do with TADA and the offence against him, if any, ought to have been referred to the normal criminal court and for that reason, the confession recorded under TADA ought to have been erased. He also very much relied on the decisions of this Court in Sanjay Dutt (supra), Prakash Kumar (supra) and Mohd. Amin vs. CBI (2008) 15 o sec 49. 17. Learned ASG met all the contentions and took us through the relevant materials relied on by the prosecution. Confesssional Statement of Sanjay Dutt (A-117) 18. The confessional statement of A-117 was duly recorded under Section 15 of TADA on 26. 04. 1993 at 15. 30 hrs. (First Part) and on 28. 04. 1993 at 1600 hrs. (Second Part) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay.

The following extracts from the confession of the appellant are pertinent: "(i) I am having three valid license for fire arms and possess 3 fire arms as mentioned below: "' ;; (a) 270 Rifle of BRUNO make; (b) 375 Magnum Double barreled Rifle; and (c) 12 Bore Gun of Double Barrel. 1-l SANJAY DUTI (A-117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 40·1 (ii) I purchased these weapons due to my fondness for hunting. I normally go for hunting with one friend of mine, viz. , Mr. Yusuf Nullwala as he is an experienced hunter. I also know one friend of Yusuf Nullwala by name Kersi Bapuji Adajenia and met him three times. (iii) In December, 1~91, I had given dates for shooting to actor producer Firoz Khan for his film Yalgar. He had taken the whole unit for shooting in Dubai. During one of the shootings, Firoz Khan introduced me to one Mr. Daud Ibrahim and also to his brother Anees during another shooting session.

After that, Anees used to visit us regularly during the shootings and also at the place of our stay. (iv) Since Anees used to come frequently, I become well acquainted with him. (v) I also know the proprietors of Magnum Video, namely Hariif Kandawala and Samir Hingora. I also signed for acting in one of their film Sanam. Samir is treasurer of Indian Motion Picture Association (IMPA). Hanif and Samir used to come quite frequently to my house for taking dates for shooting from my Secretary. (vi) Hanif told me that if I so desire, he would make immediate arrangements to provide an automatic · fire arm to me for my protection. Initially, I did not show any interest but when Hanif and Samir started repeatedly telling me to acquire a firearm from them, I gradually fell prey to their persistent suggestion and expressed my desire to Hanif and Samir. They said that they would immediately· provide me with an automatic fire arm. (vii) One day, in mid Jan. , in the evening, around 9. 00 to 9.

30 p. m. , Hanif and Samir came to my house along with one person by name Salem. I had met this Salem once or twice earlier also. (viii) Then these 3 fellows told me that they were coming tomorrow morning with the weapons to be delivered to you. Then they went away. (ix) Next day morning Samir, Hanif and Salem all three came to my house along with one other person who is not known to me. (x) They came in a Maruti Van and parked it in a Tin shed which is used by us for parking our vehicles. One person was sitting inside the Maruti Van. After about 15·-20 min. , he took out three rifles and they o , said it is AK-56 rifles. (xi) I got some cloth from my house and gave it to them. Salem and the person who has come with him wrapped those rifles iii the cloth and gave it to me. (xii) When I opened and saw it, there were three rifles some magazines and rounds, they have told me that there are 250 rounds. The rounds were kept in another hand bag fetched by me. (xiii) On seeir.

ig three rifles, I got scared and told them ·that I wanted only one weapon. Then Hanif and Salem told me to keep it for the time being and in case it is not required, we will take away the rest of the two weapons. (xiv) They have also shown me some brown coloured hand-grenades and asked me whether I want that also. l do not want these grenades· and you may please leave my house immediately, I told them. (xv) I kept these rifles and ammunition in the dickey of my Fiat Car No. MMU 4372 and locked it. (xvi) On the same night, I removed the three rifles and ammunition, kept the same in a handbag which I kept in my private hall which was on the 2nd floor of our bungalow. (xvii) Two days thereafter, since I had considerable mental tension, I contacted Hanif Kandawala and requested him to take away the weapons. He said that he would arrange to send somebody to collect the same. After two days, Hanif Kandawala and Samir Hingora along with Salem came to my house in the evening in a car.

I returned two AK-56 rifles and a part of the ammunition to them but retained one AK-56 rifle and some ammunitions with me. (xviii) Around Sept. 1992, during one of my shooting at R. K. Studio, one Kayyum, who is a member of Dawood Ibrahim gang, who had also met me in Dubai at the time of shooting of the film Yalgar approached me with a stranger. They offered me a 9 mm pistol with ammunition. When I saw it, I liked it and had a strong desire to purchase the same. They offered it to me for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. I paid the said amount in cash to them at my house and purchased the same. I do not know the name of that person who was brought by Kayyum. However, he was aged about 35-38 years, apparently, Muslim, dark complexion, height about 5'8'', fat built, moustache, medium curly hair, wearing shirt and pant. I will be able to identify him if brought before me. He also handed over 8 rounds of the said pistol. (xix) On 2nd April, I left for Mauritious for shooting of the film 'Aatish'.

There I was informed by a casual contact that Hanif and Samir have been arrested by the Bombay Police for their complicity in bomb blasts. (xx) On hearing the news, I got frightened as these fellows had given me the AK-56 rifles and they may tell my name to the police to involve me in the bomb blasts case. I contacted my friend Mr. Yusuf Nullwala on telephone and asked him that something is lying in a black coloured bag which is kept in my hall at the second floor of my house and it should be taken away immediately and destroy the things completely which are there in the bag, otherwise, I shall be in a great trouble. By this time, the news about my possession of AK-56 rifles had appeared in the press and on coming to know about this, my father asked me about the truthfulness of this news, but I denied the same. My anxiety about the whole episode became unbearable and I decided to return fo Bombay in between.

My father informed my fligl'lt details to the Police and I was picked up by police as soon as I landed at Bombay and I confessed the whole things to them. " 19. The abovesaid confession highlighted the crime for which the appellant-Sanjay Dutt has been charged. The following facts emerge from the abovesaid confession: (i) He was already having three licensed firearms. (ii) He developed acquaintance with Anees Ibrahim brother of Dawood Ibrahim during a film-shooting in Dubai. (iii) He expressed his desire to Samir Hingora (A-53) and Hanif Kandawala (A-40) to have an automatic fire-arm. (iv They came with one Salem with whom Sanjay Dutt was already acquainted with and they assured him of the delivery of weapons the next day in the morning. (v) They came in the morning of 16. 01. 1993 with one other person and delivered 3 AK-56 Rifles and 250 rounds. (vi) After 2 days, he returned 2 AK-56 and ammunitions but retained 1 AK-56 and some ammunition.

(vii) In April, while he was shooting at Mauritius, he heard the news of the arrest of Samir and Hanif, on which, he got frightened and requested his friend Yusuf Nulwalla to destroy the weapons. 20. The appellant (A-117) not only implicates himself in the above said statement but also amongst others the appellant- Yusuf Nulwalla (A-118). The abovesaid confession has been duly recorded by PW-193 who has proved the compliance with the provisions of law while recording the confession. The abovesaid confession is a substantive piece of evidence and it has been held in a series of judgments that the confession can be the sole basis of conviction, if recorded in accordance with the provisions of TADA. Further, the confessional statement establishes the unauthorized possession ofweapons in the notified area of Bombay. Confessional Statements of co-accused: 21.

The confession of the appellant (A-117) is substantiated and corroborated with the confession of other coaccused, namely, Samir Hingora (A-53), Baba @ Ibrahim Musa Chauhan (A-41), Mansoor Ahmed (A-89), Hanif Kandawala (A- 40), Yusuf Nulwalla (A-118) and Kersi Bapuji Adajania (A-124) which are as under. Confessional Statement of Samir Ahmed Hingora (A-53) Confessional statement of A-53 under Section 15 of TADA was recorded on 18. 05. 1993 (17:00 hrs. ) and 20. 05. 1993 (17:30 hrs. ) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The said confession reveals as under: (i) He started a Video Library and Mustafa Dossa @ Mustafa Majnoo (A-138) - brother of Mohd. Dossa (AA) was a member of his Video Library and he had 2-3 shops in the same market. (ii) Tiger Memon used to work with Mustafa Dossa and became a friend of A-53. (iii) A-53 started film distribution and production business by the name of 'Magnum' in partnership with Hanif Kandawala (A-40 - since died).

(iv) Anis Ibrahim (AA) became a member of his Video Library and was referred to by everyone as Anisbhai since he was the brother of Dawood Ibrahim. (v) A-53 received a payment of Rs. 21. 90 lacs from Ayub Memon sent through someone on 13. 03. 1993 (one day after the blasts) as advance for purchasing . rights of films. (vi) A-53 had visited Dubai and met Anis Ibrahim many times and sold the rights of many films to M/s Kings Video, managed by Anis. Anis also controls Al- Mansoor Video Company through Chota Rajan. (vii) On 15. 01. 1993, A-41 and A-139 met A-53 at his office. Anis Ibrahim called him from Dubai and said that A-41 and A-139 are his men and they have some weapons which have to be delivered to A- 117 at his residence. (viii) A-53 and A-139 went to Sanjay Dutt's (A-117) house where he hugged Abu Salem and asked him about the weapons. A-117 then told A-139 to bring the weapons nexj: day at 7 am. (ix) On 16. 01. 1993, A-53 led A-139 and A-41 to the house of Sanjay Dutt.

A-139 and A-41 were in a blue maruti van while A-53 was in his own car. (x) At the residence of A-117, A-53 saw that the blue van was containing 9 AK-56 rifles and hand grenades and they gave 3 AK-56 rifles and some magazines to A-117. A-117 also asked for some hand grenades which were put in a black bag by A-139. (xi) A-139 kept the rifles in a fiat car belonging to A- 117. The hand grenades were kept in the car of A- 53 and he left the car at A-117's residence and took an auto rickshaw. (xii) A-53 collected his car from A-117's residence after 3 days when he called him and said that grenades have been taken out. Confessional statement of Baba @ lbhrahim Musa Chauhan (A-41) Confessional statement of A-41 was recorded under Section 15 of TADA on 23. 04. 1993 (12:45 hrs. ) and 25. 04. 1993 (13:05 hrs. ) by Shri Prem Krishna Jain (PW-189), the then DCP, Zon~ X, Bombay.

The said confession shows that: (i) A-41 was introduced to Anees Ibrahim Kaskar (AA)-brother of Dawood Ibrahim and Abu Salem when he had been to Dubai and, thereafter, he developed good acquaintance with both of them. (ii) On 15. 01. 993, A-139 telephoned A-41 and asked him to arrange for a garage having facility of closing it by shutter. (iii) Abu Salem is an extortionist and worked for Anees Ibrahim. (iv) Thereafter, A-139 went to the office of A-41 and inquired if he had received a phone call from Anees Ibrahim. On replying in the negative, A-139 went to a nearby STD booth and called Anees and then made A-41 talk to him, at that time, A-41 told him that the garages, as required, cannot be arranged by him. (v) Thereafter, at the behest of Anees Ibrahim (AA), A- 41 along with A-139 went in search for garages in Bandra and Pali Hills area and Samir Hingora (A- 53) and Hanif Kandawala (A-40) also joined them.

(vi) Since they did not find any garage, A-139, A-53 and A-41 informed the same to Anees over phone who was in Dubai and it was decided that the work of finding out the garage would be carried out the next day. In the meanwhile, A-139 told A-41 that he will keep 2 to 3 AK-56 rifles with him for 2/3 days. (vii) On the next day i. e. 16. 01. 1993, A-139 went to the house of A-41 and told him to take a white coloured Maruti van bearing registration number of Gujarat, which was parked near the Arsha Shopping Centre, and to reach the office of Magnum Video. Accordingly, he went to the said place and from there he along with A-139 and A-53, went to the house of A-117. (viii) At that time, A-139 introduced A-41 to A-117. (ix) A-41 parked the above white coloured Maruti Van which he had driven to reach the house of Sanjay Dutt in his garage.

(x) There were 9 AK-56 rifles, 80 hand grenades, 1500/2000 cartridges and 56 magazines in the cavities beneath the rear seat of the aforesaid Maruti Van as well as inside the lining near the front 8 and rear side doors, out of which, 3 rifles, 9 magazines, 450 bullets and 20 hand grenades were asked to be kept by A-139 in Sanjay Dutt's Fiat car. (xi) Accordingly, A-41 shifted the cartridges and · magazines to a sports bag and kept it in Sanjay Dutt's car. (xii) A-53 packed the above mentioned 20 grenades in another sports bag and kept it in Sanjay Dutt's car and gave another long sports bag to A-41 in which he filled 3 rifles, 16 magazines, 25 hand grenades and 750 cartridges. A-41 took the said bag to his house and hid it beneath his bed and on the next day, A-41 loaded all the bullets in the magazines of the rifles. · · Confessional Statement of Manzoor Ahmed Sayyed Ahmed (A-89) · Confessional statement of A-89 under Section 15 of TADA was duly recorded on 24. 05. 1993 (11:15 hrs.

) and 26. 05. 1993 (17:30 hrs. ) by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193) the then DCP, Zone Ill, Bombay. The said confession reveals as under: (i) A-89 was a good friend of Abu Salem. (ii) He owns a Maruti 1000 bearing No. MP 23 B- 9264. (iii) On 22/23rd January, 1993, A-89 metA~139. A-139 gave the keys of his car to A-41 who kept a black bag of weapons in it. (iv) A-139 and A-89 then went to the first floor of 22 Mount Mary, Vidhyanchal Apts. They gave the bag to an old lady, viz. , Zaibunisa Anwar Kazi (A-119) and told her that the arms were for the purpose of causing riots, and were sent by Anees Ibrahim brother of Dawood Ibrahim. (v) A-119 looked at the contents of the bag and then kept it at her residence. (vi) After 8 days, A-139 called A-89 again and together with A-40, they went to the residence of A-117 where he gave them a blue rexin bag and a carton. (vii) Abu Salem and A-89 then went to the house of A- 119 and gave the carton and the bag to her.

Abu Salem told A-119 to keep those weapons safely as they were to be t1sed for orchestrating bomb blasts. 22. The abovesaid confessional statements of the coaccused clearly establish the case against the appellant-Sanjay Dutt and also corroborate with each other in material particulars. The following facts emerge from the abovesaid confessional statements:- (i) The appellant . had acquired 3 AK-56 rifles and its ammunitions unauthorisedly. (ii) Samir Hingora (A-53); Hanif Kandawala (A-40) and Salem (A-139) provided the above said arms and ammunitions to the appellant at his residence. (iii) On being frightened after seeing the weapons, the appellant contacted Hanif Kandawala (A-41) and requested him to take away the weapons. (iv) Abu Salem came after few days and the appellant returned 2 AK-56 rifles and also ammunitions, but retained one AK-56 rifle and some of its ammunitions. Confessional Statement of the appellant - Yusuf Mohsin 8 Nulwalla (A-118) 23.

Confessional statement of A-118 under 15 of TADA was recorded on 27. 04. 1993 at (14:20 hrs. ) and 29. 04. 1993 at (16:00 hrs. ) by Shri K. L. Bishnoi, the then DCP, Zone-Ill, Bombqy. The following extracts from the confession of the appell~nt are pertinent:- "Somewhere around the year, 1970, I came in contact with one person by name Azhar Hussain and later on I became very friendly with him. He was cousin pf Sanjay Dutt through him I met Sanjay Dutt and developed friendship with him as he was also fond of hunting, fishing and staying in camp life. After ttiis myself and Sanjay Dutt used to go out for hunting with othe(friends occasionally. I came in contact with Sanjay Dutt's father and other family members due to my friendship with Sanjay Dutt and his cousin Azhar Hussain. Later on Sanjay Dutt had started taking on drugs and because of this he used to remain out off from us and started avoiding me.

However, my contact with Sanjay's father and other family members was as it is and they . normally used to ask me to convince Sanjay to give up. the drugs but my convincing and persuasion did not help him. " "Somewhere in the year 1984, Sanjay has taken me out to one of his friend by name Tariq Ibrahim's place in Kanpur. From there his friend had taken us out of his farm in Tarai and we stayed there fqr one week. During the stay, I casually mentioned to Tariq Ibrahim that I am quite fond of guns but I am not getting arms license. Then he told me that don't worry my brother is Supdt. of Police at Ratlam ·and he will get you arms license as and when you wanted. Later on, I contacted his brother Asif Ibrahim, who was Supdt. of Police, Ratlam to give me arms license, he did it and subsequently he gave me two more arms licenses. After getting these licenses, I was gifted two guns by Sunil Dutt out of which one was 12 Bore DBBL gun and another was 22 Rifle.

I purchased the 3rd weapon, which is single barrel 375 Magnum Rifle. " "In the meanwhile, I had come in contact with one Kesi Bapuji Adajenia, who was also in steel fabrication business and was also an old hunter so we became friends. He also used to give me sub contracts for steel fabrication. I had introduced him to Sanjay Dutt also and later on he went with us for hunting to a place near Surat once. " "Later on Sanjay Dutt became quite popular in Hindi ·movies and most of the times he used to remain busy in his shootings. Many times, I also used to get to the place for shooting to meet Sanjay Dutt. He had taken me to Bangalore, Mysore, Ooty, Kodai Kanai and various other places during this outdoor shooting to these places. Normally, I used to meet Sanjay two to three times in a . week either at his house or at the place of shootings. " "In the first week of April, he left for Mauritius and I got b1,1sy with my normal· business. Then one d,ay, I read.

in newspaper the news item that "Sanjay dutt is in possession of AK-56 Rifles. " In the same day evening, I received a telephone call at my residential telephone from Sanjay dutty, who was speaking from. Mauritius. He told me that there is something which is kept in a black coloured bag kept in his room at his residence (i. e. 58, Pali Hill Sandra, Bombay-50) and I shall take that bag from his room and destroy the things inside it immediately otherwise he will be in a great trouble. · Next day morning, I went to Sanjay's residence and took the black bag from his second floor room and opened it there only. When I opened it I found it containing one AK-56 rifle, two empty magazines and approximately two hundred fifty 8 rounds of AK-56, one pistol and one loaded magazines of pistol.

I took out the AK-56 rifle there only and cutted it in pieces with a hexa, which I had taken along with me then I put all the cut pieces in the bag and came to my friend Kersi Bapuji Adajenia's house as he used to keep all the tools of his steel fabrication in the godown in his house. I told him the whole sto! )' and also that Sanju is in great trouble; so I required your help in melting and destroying the cutted pieces of AK-56 rifles.. Both of us came to his godown and I tried to melt the cutted pieces of AK-56 with the help of cutter, but could not succeed, then my friend Adajenia melte~ all the pieces of AK-56 rifle with the nelp of gas cutter. After that I gave the pistol to Kersi Bapuji Adajenia asked him to burn it also after sometime. I collected the melted remains of AK-56 Rifle and threw it in the sea at Marine Drive. Next day morning, I keP. t the rounds of AK-56 in two separate bundles wrapped in papers and threw.

it in the sea in front of Oberoi Towers and returned to my home. Next day in the early morning, I got telephone call from Sanjay Dutt at my residence No. 3755092 and I informed him that your work is done and had normal talk with Sanjay Dutt. After this, I spoke to Kersi Bapujt Adajenia once and told him that you burn the pistol a! so but he told me that you do no worry about this. I will take care of this. Then I stayed at my house and did my normal business till I was picked up by the Police. " 24. From the abovesaid confession, the following facts emerge: 8 (i) Yusuf Mohsin Nulwalla is an old and well known friend of Sanjay Dutt. (ii) In the month of April, when Sanjay Dutt was in Mauritius, A-118 was asked to destroy certain objects kept at his residence. (iii) On reaching there, he discovered AK-56 and a pistol and ammunition. (iv) He tried to destroy them.

(v) He took all these objects to a friend of his, namely, Kersi Bapuji Adajania (A-124) (vi) A-124 heJped him to destroy the same but he retained . the pistol with him. (vii) Upon being reminded about destroying the pistol, A-124 assured A-118 that he would take care of it. 25. In view of the above, it is seen that the appellant (A- 118), upon instructions, caused destruction of evidence related to an offence. which were unauthorisedly possessed automatic firearms/weapons in a notified area, attracting the provisions of the Arms Act. The confession of A-118 not only involves and implicates him, but also implicates Kersi Adajania (A-124). The confession of A-118 corroborates with the confession of A-117 as well as A-124. Confessional Statement of the appellant - Kersi Bapujl Adajania (A-124) SANJAYDUTI (A~117) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. 415 26. The confessional statement of A-124 under Section 15 of TADA was recorded on 27. 04. 1993 (15:10 hrs. ) and on 30. 04. 1993 at (16:00 hr.

) by Shri K. L. Bishnoi, the then DCP, Zone-Ill, Bombay. The following extrar•-. from the confession of the appellant-Kersi Bapuji Adajenia are relevant:- "I am Kersi Bapuji Adajenia, age 63 years. I stay at 605, Karim Manzil, JSS Road, Bombay-2 with my family. I normally take contracts for steel fabrications and the work is done at the sites of the parties only. I normally keep the equipments and the tools for steel fabrications at the temporary godown in my house and I take these equipments to the sites as and when it is required. Due to the work load, I have purchased two or three sets of all the equipments and tools. Whenever there is a heavy work load, I give the excess work on sub-contracts to other persons. Sometimes, I provide my own tools and equipments to sub-contractors. Yusuf Mohsin Nullwala was my one such sub-contractor. I had come in contact with him about ten years back. Since then, I used to give him subcontracts regularly.

During the days of my youth, I used to be very fond of hunting and used t