revn14.07.odt 1/21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.14/2007
APPLICANT :- State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer, Police Station, Kotwali,
Nagpur.
...V E R S U S...
NON-APPLICANTS:- 1. Sheikh Ilias Sheikh Yusuf,
Age 19 years, R/o Aksa Nagar,
Jalgaon.
2. Sheikh Irfan Abdul Rauf,
age 21 years, R/o D-40, MIDC,
Jalgaon.
3. Wakarul Hussen Mujaffar Hussen
age 29 years, R/o Dahi Handa Wes,
Old City, Akola, Distt. Akola.
4. Sk. Siddik Sk. Ajij,
age 21 years, r/o Aksa Nagar,
Jalgaon.
5. Sk. Shakil Ahmad Abdul Annan,
age 27 years, r/o Nasheman Colony,
Jalgaon.
6. Sharifkhan Sarfarajkhan
age 23 years, Near Sunni Masjid,
Tambapura, Jalgaon.
7. Guljar Ahmad Gulam Wani @ Hasaratbeg
@ Hamid Faruque @ Faruque Ali,
@ Sashid @ Nazir @ Rafique
age about 28 years, R/o Taparwari Pota,
Tq. Pattan, P. Stn. Kreyari, Distt.
Baramulla (Jammu Kashmir).
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:37:19 :::
revn14.07.odt 2/21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Shri S.S. Doifode with Shri A.S. Sonare, APPs for applicant]
[Shri A. M. Rizwy, Adv. for non-applicants/respondents]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.
DATED :- 16.02.2010.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. 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 2 nd 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.
2. 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. They also
enrolled young persons as members of SIMI with a view to send them
after providing training in arms and preparation of bombs in various
parts of India with a view to cause bomb blasts for waging war against
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:19 :::
revn14.07.odt 3/21
India in Doda, and Kashmir and several other places so also to cause
bomb blasts at Nagpur. According to the prosecution, all the accused
persons in these two session trials having conspired accordingly
prepared bombs at Jalgaon and handed them over to accused No.1-
Sk. Rijwan Sk. Rashid and accused No.2-Khalid Alidkhan Ajamalkhan for
planting those bombs at Nagpur to create explosion in public places.
According to the prosecution, thus, all the accused persons No. 1 to 11
conspired together, prepared bombs at Jalgaon and the same were
transported to Nagpur through accused No.1 – Sk. Rijwan Sk. Rashid
and accused No.2-Khalid Alidkhan Ajamalkhan for planting in Nagpur
and therefore, all these accused persons were guilty of the charges
under Sections 153-B, 121 121-A 122, 123 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and under Section 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908
as per the chargesheet filed in the Court at Nagpur in the above two
session trials in respect of two offences, which according to the
prosecution have taken place on 20.5.2001 and 24.5.2001.
3. It is not in dispute that one bomb was planted at Naik road
while the other was planted in Badkas Chowk, Nagpur. The bomb
planted at Naik road was discovered on 20.5.2001, while the other one
was discovered on 24.5.2001 and that is why two separate offences
were registered and two chargesheets were filed accordingly and two
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:19 :::
revn14.07.odt 4/21
session trials were registered in Nagpur Court.
4. Since the offences regarding conspiracy and waging war
against the State, preparation of bombs took place at Jalgaon and
chargesheet was filed in the Sessions Court at Jalgaon against these
eleven accused and they were charged for the offences punishable
under Sections 153-A r/w 34, 120-B r/w 34, 121 r/w 34, 121-A r/w 34,
122 r/w 34, 123 r/w 34, 201 r/w 34, 506 B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and under Section 4 (a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908,
under Section 4 (b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, under
Section 4 (a) and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and under
Section 4 (b) and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The said
session trial was bearing Session Trial No.126/2002. In that trial, the
learned Sessions Judge framed charge, which I reproduce for
convenience.
“1. Sk. Ilias Sk. Yusuf,
age 19 years.
2. Sk. Shakil Ahmad Abdul Annan,
27 years.3. Sk. Irfan Abdul Rauf,
age 21 years.
4. Sharifkhan Sarfarajkhan,
age 23 years.5. Sk. Rijwan Sk. Rashid,
age 21 years.::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:19 :::
revn14.07.odt 5/21
6. Sk. Siddik Sk. Ajij,
age 21 years.7. Khalid Alidkhan Ajamalkhan,
age 22 years.8. Wakarul Hussen Mujaffar Husen
age 29 years.9. Guljar Ahmad Gulam Mohammad,
age 28 years.10. Sayyad Shah Hasib Raja @ Tasib
Raja @ Hasibbhai @ Hasif Raja
s/o Firdosh Raja, age 34 years.Along with accused Sk. Rashid Sk. Chand and
absconding accused Sk. Mushtaq Sk Chand, Asif Sk.
Supadu, Khalid Sk. Iqbal, Hanif Sk. Ismail, Parvejkhan, Asif
Khan,as follows :
That you all in furtherance of your common
intention 4 or 5 years prior to 25-7-2001 at Jalgaon,Nagpur, Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir, Doda, Kupwar,
Shrinagar and Patana by speaking of writing or by visible
representation viz., by giving lectures in weekly meeting,
upper yearly Isetma ( ) by publishing posters –promoted or attempted to promote feelings of enmity or
hatrate between Hindu community and Muslim
community by giving provocative speeches and
publishing the posters, prejudicial to maintenance of
harmony between the Hindu and Muslim community::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:19 :::
revn14.07.odt 6/21disturbed or likely to disturb the public tranquility and
thereby committed and offence punishable undersec. 153-A r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and within my
cognizance.Secondly, during the same time and place,
during the course of same transaction you all in
furtherance of your common intention agreed to do or
caused to be done an illegal act to enroll the persons ofMuslim community as the members of Students Islamic
Movement of India (SIMI) instigated them by provocativespeeches and by publication of posters by their religious
feelings by sending them to Delhi, Kashmir liasoning withthe members of SIMI and agents of Terrorists
Organization, providing training in arms and preparation
of Bombs and supplying arms, ammunition to instigatesome young Muslim persons and the Members of SIMI to
cause Bomb blasts by illegal means by adopting illegalmeans and with some act i.e., waging war against the
Indian Army in Doda and Kashmir, and attempting to
cause Bomb blasts at Nagpur on 20-5-2001, and therebycommitted an offence punishable under 120-B r.w. 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.Thirdly, at the same time and place and during the
course of same transaction you all in furtherance of yourcommon intention waged the war or attempted to wage
the war or abetted wagging of war against the
Government of India, and thereby committed an offence
punishable under sec. 121 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:20 :::
revn14.07.odt 7/21Code and within my cognizance.
Fourthly, during the same time and place and
within India and in the Course of same transaction, you all
conspired to wage war or abet the wagging of war against
the Government of India or conspired to overawe bymeans of criminal force the Central Government and
thereby committed an offence punishable under
Sec. 121-A r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and within mycognizance.
Fifthly, during the same time and place and in
the course of same transaction you collected the men or
arms or ammunition with the intention of wagging war orbeing prepared to wage war against the Government of
India, and thereby committed an offence punishable
under sec. 122 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, andwithin my cognizance.
Sixthly, during the same time and place and
in the course of same transaction you accused no.3 – Sk.
Irfan Abdul Rauf, accused no.5 Sk. Rijwan Sk. Rashid,
accused no.7 Khalid Alidkhan Ajmalkhan, and accusedno.1 Sk. Iliyas Sk. Yusuf and absconding accused
Sk. Mustak Sk. Shafi had design to wage war against the
Government of India, concealed the existence of such
design by concealing the explosive substance, chemicalsdetenators, A,B,C,D – timers, batteries, fuse wire etc.
intending by such concealment to facilitate the wagging
of such war and, thereby committed an offence
punishable under sec. 123 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:20 :::
revn14.07.odt 8/21Code and within my cognizance.
Seventhly, at the same time and place and
during the course of same transaction, you all in
furtherance of your common intention were knowing or
reason to believe that certain offence to wit wagging waragainst the Government punishable with death has been
committed, did cause certain evidence of the said offence
to dis-appear, to wit to conceal explosive substances orthrow them or burnt them with intention of screening
yourself from legal punishment and thereby committed anoffence punishable under sec. 201 r.w. 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and within my cognizance.Eightly, at the same time and place and in the
course of same transaction, you accused no.2 Sk. Shakil
Ahmad Abdul Annan, accused no.8 Wakarul HusenMujaffar Husen and absconding accused Asif Sk. Supadu
have committed criminal intimidation by threatening theguardians of absconding accused Khalid Sk. Iqbal, Asif Sk.
Supadu, Hanif Sk. Ismail with injury to their life with
intend to cause an alarm to the said guardians or to causethem to omit i.e., to report the matter to the police, and
thereby committed an offence punishable under
Sec. 506-B r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and within my
cognizance.Ninethly, at the same time, place and during
the course of same transaction you all along with dead
and absconding accused unlawfully and maliciously did
any act to wit you accused No.9 Guljar Ahmad Gulam::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:20 :::
revn14.07.odt 9/21Mohammad Conspired with accused No.5 Sk. Rijwan
Sk. Rashid, accused no.3 Sk. Irfan Abdul Rauf, accusedNo.7 Khalid Alidkhan Ajmalkhan caused an explosion at
Nagpur by appointing latter as Area Commander of Hisbul
Mujahiddin by explosive substance of nature likely toendanger the life or to cause serious injury to the
property, and thereby committed an offence punishable
under sec. 4 (a) of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 andwithin my cognizance.
Tenthly, at the same time and place and in the
course of same transaction, you accused no.9-Guljar
Ahmad Wani @ Guljar Ahmad Gulam Mohammad andcalled accused No.7 Khalid Alidkhan Ajmalkhan, accused
no.1 Sk. Ilias Sk. Yusuf at Jama Masjid, Delhi, and supplied
the latter two – accused explosive substances, chemical,detenators, A.B.C.D timers, remote control, fuse wire etc.,
used for preparing Bombs and also provided training toaccused no.7 Khalid Alidkhan Ajmalkhan and accused
no.5 Sk. Rijwan Sk. Rashid, accused no.1 Sk. Ilias Sk.
Yusuf and absconding accused Sk. Mustak Sk. Shafi,accused no.3 Sk. Irfan Abdul Rauf, prepared two pipe
bombs (improviced explosive devices) at the house of Sk.
Jainuddin resident near Millat High School, Meharun, who
is relative of accused no.7 Khalid Alidkhan Ajmalkhan, andthereby committed an offence punishable under sec. 4 (b)
of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, and in the course of
same transaction, you accused no.7 Khalid Alidkhan
Ajamalkhan, accused no.5 Sk. Rijwan Sk. Rashid tried to::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:20 :::
revn14.07.odt 10/21cause explosion on 20-5-2001 at Nagpur and thereby
committed an offence punishable under sec. 4 (a) and 5of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and within my
cognizance.Eleventhly, at the same time and place and in
the course of same transaction accused no.3 Sk. Irfan
Abdul Rauf, accused No.1 Sk. Ilias Sk. Yusuf, accused no.5
Sk. Rijwan Sk. Rashid, accused no.7 Khalid AdidkhanAjmalkhan, and absconding accused Sk. Mustak Sk. Shafi
were found in possession
ig of explosive substances,
chemical detenators, A.B.C.D timers, batteries, fuse wires
etc., used for preparing the Bombs with intend toendanger or property under suspicious circumstances and
thereby committed an offence punishable under sec. 4 (b)
and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and within mycognizance.”
5. It is not in dispute that the trial in the said Session Trial
No.126/2002 was held by the Sessions Judge at Jalgaon and all these
accused were tried and some of them were convicted and some were
acquitted by the said Court. Learned Counsel for respondents stated
before me that the respondents have preferred appeals before
Aurangabad Bench of this Court and the Aurangabad Bench has also
released them on bail by suspending the sentence.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:20 :::
revn14.07.odt 11/21
6. Perusal of the charge in Session Trial No.126/2002 held at
Jalgaon Court clearly shows in substance that four or five years prior to
25.7.2001 at Jalgaon, Nagpur, Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir, Doda, Kupwar,
Shrinagar and Patna lectures were given by the accused persons so
also by publishing posters and promoting the feelings of hatred
between Hindu and Muslim community. The accused persons had
prepared bombs in the M.I.D.C. area of Jalgaon and those bombs were
delivered in possession of accused No.1 – Sk. Rijwan Sk. Rashid and
accused No.2 – Khalid Alidkhan Ajamalkhan for being planted at
Nagpur. As a result of the said conspiracy, these two accused Nos.1
and 2 then came to Nagpur and planted one bomb at Naik road and
another at Badkas chowk. It is not in dispute that none of these bombs
exploded and they were found out and defused by transporting them to
Gorewada jungle. Thus one bomb was detected at Naik road on
21.5.2001, while other was detected on 24.5.2001 at Badkar square.
On these very facts and charges, chargesheet in the Nagpur Sessions
Court in the above two session trials was filed and all accused persons
are being tried in Nagpur Sessions Court also.
7. Sessions Court, Jalgaon delivered the judgment on
12.5.2006, holding some of the accused persons guilty of the offences
charged against them and were sentenced to jail. Thereafter all
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:20 :::
revn14.07.odt 12/21accused persons who are being tried in the above two session trials at
Nagpur filed applications, Exh.160 and Exh.75 in the above two
sessions trials for stopping the trial on the ground that since all
accused persons were already tried by Jalgaon Court and were
convicted and sentenced also on the self same incident, facts and
charges they cannot be tried and protection under Section 300 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 20 clause II of the
Constitution of India would be available to them as they cannot be
tried twice for the same offences. The learned Sessions Judge heard
learned Counsel for both the parties at length and made an order,
holding that except accused No.1 – Sk. Rijwan Sk. Rashid and accused
No.2 – Khalid Alidkhan Ajamalkhan, all other accused persons were
entitled to the benefit of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
since they were already tried and convicted by the Jalgaon Court. The
learned Sessions Judge, however, made a distinction in so far as
accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned and the distinction was that these
two accused persons had actually planted bombs at Nagpur and
therefore, their trial will have to continue for the charges levelled
against them all the more so because they were never tried for actual
planting the bombs at Nagpur by Jalgaon Court. It is this order which is
under challenge in the present criminal revision application.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:20 :::
revn14.07.odt 13/21
8. In support of the criminal revision application, learned A.P.P.
Shri Doifode with A.P.P. Shri Sonare argued that the incident of
20.5.2001 was alone the subject matter of charge in Jalgaon Coaurt
while the incident of 24.5.2001 was not the subject matter of charge in
Jalgaon Court and therefore, there is clear distinction and at least for
the incident of 24.5.2001 all the accused persons can be tried by
Nagpur Court and therefore, the principle of double jeopardy would not
come into play for that reason. Learned A.P.Ps. then argued that the
preparation of bombs at Jalgaon for being dispatched to Nagpur
through accused Nos.1 and 2, as a result of conspiracy hatched at
M.I.D.C. Jalgaon, in so far as planting of bombs at Nagpur is concerned,
were not tried by Jalgaon Court and therefore, all the accused persons
will have to be tried by Nagpur Court. Learned A.P.Ps. then argued that
the accused persons were not charged for the offence punishable
under Section 4 (b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 by Jalgaon
Court and therefore, Nagpur Court cannot be stopped from trying them
and they have neither been tried nor convicted for the said offence.
9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents supported
the impugned order and argued that perusal of the chargesheets filed
in the Nagpur Court in the above two session trials clearly show that it
is replica of chargesheet that was filed in the Jalgaon Court and as a
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:20 :::
revn14.07.odt 14/21matter of fact according to learned Counsel for the respondents,
Nagpur Police did nothing except copying Jalgaon chargesheet and
filing the same in Nagpur Court. According to him, at any rate, perusal
of the charges levelled against the accused persons at Jalgaon Court
show this position, namely, that the conspiracy by all accused persons
hatched in M.I.D.C. Jalgaon, bombs were prepared at Jalgaon and they
were dispatched through accused Nos.1 and 2 for being planted at
Nagpur for creating explosions in public places. According to learned
Counsel for the respondents, it is not the case of the prosecution that
all accused persons including accused Nos.1 and 2 had come down to
Nagpur to execute the plan of planting the bombs and exploding them.
He, therefore, submits that distinction will have to be drawn between
accused Nos.1 and 2 as against other accused persons, in so far as the
session trial at Jalgaon is concerned. Session trial at Jalgaon has come
to an end and that is the reason why these applications were filed
thereafter and therefore, submission made by learned A.P.Ps. that they
were filed too late and therefore, the Court should have rejected the
same, is misconceived.
10. I have gone through the impugned order made by the
learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur. I have also gone through the charge
that was framed in Session Trial No.126/2002 by Jalgaon Court, which I
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:20 :::
revn14.07.odt 15/21have already reproduced above. Perusal of the record shows that the
aforesaid facts narrated herein before are also the subject matter of
chargesheet of the two sessions trials pending before the Sessions
Judge, Nagpur and there is no separate incident or facts constituting
different offences than those which have been enumerated above. The
only difference i.e. being pointed by learned A.P.Ps. about incident of
24.5.2001 is hardly a point for making distinction. The reason is that
as a result of conspiracy which was hatched at Jalgaon and as a result
of preparation of bombs at Jalgaon and planting them at Nagpur
through accused Nos.1 and 2, these two bombs were found on different
dates. One bomb was found on 21.5.2001 at Naik road, while other
bomb was found on 24.5.2001 in Badkas Chowk. Merely because
these bombs were found on different dates or discovered on different
dates, the same cannot become a point of distinction. As a matter of
fact even according to the prosecution both these bombs were planted
as a result of the conspiracy and preparation of bombs which took
place at Jalgaon and therefore, in my opinion, incident of 24.5.2001
cannot be said to be a separate incident in that sense, as even the said
incident is directly related to the prosecution case about conspiracy
and preparation of bombs at Jalgaon. Merely because the other bomb
was found or discovered on 24.5.2001, no distinction can be drawn
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:20 :::
revn14.07.odt 16/21therefrom as contended by learned A.P.Ps.
11. Perusal of the chargesheet filed in Nagpur Court in both
these session trials reveal the above position and there is no separate
material to hold that Nagpur Court would try the session trial in respect
of any other offences than the one narrated herein before which was
tried by Jalgaon Court. To put in other words, all the accused persons
except accused Nos.1 and 2 have been already tried and some were
acquitted and some were convicted for hatching conspiracy at Jalgaon
against Government of India, preparing bombs for being transported to
Nagpur through accused Nos.1 and 2. For the same charges,
therefore, they cannot be again tried in session trials at Nagpur, in the
light of specific bar under section 300 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the principle of double jeopardy.
12. In the case of State Through Superintendent of Police,
CBI/SIT…Versus…Nalini and others, reported in 1999 (5)
Supreme Court Cases 253 in paragraph Nos.235, 236, 237, 238,
239, the Apex Court has had to say :
“235. The period of the aforesaid activities,
as involved in that case, covered the period from 1987
to end of 1991. Section 300 (1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure contains the ban against a second trial of the::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:20 :::
revn14.07.odt 17/21same offence against the same person. Sub-section (1)
reads thus:“300 (1) A person who has once been
tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for
an offence and convicted or acquitted of suchoffence shall, while such conviction or
acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be
tried again for the same offence, nor on thesame facts for any other offence for which a
different charge from the one made againsthim might have been made under sub-section
(1) of Section 221, or for which he might havebeen convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.”
236. The well-known maxim “nemo debet
bis vexari pro eadem causa” (no person should be twice
vexed for the same offence) embodies the well-established common law rule that no one should be put
to peril twice for the same offence. The principle which
is sought to be incorporated into Section 300 of theCriminal Procedure Code is that no man should be
vexed with more than one trial for offences arising out
of identical acts committed by him. When an offence
has already been the subject of judicial adjudication,whether it ended in acquittal or conviction, it is
negation of criminal justice to allow repetition of the
adjudication in a separate trial on the same set of facts.::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:20 :::
revn14.07.odt 18/21 237. Though Article 20 (2) of theConstitution of India embodies a protection against a
second trial after a conviction of the same offence, the
ambit of the clause is narrower than the protection
afforded by Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code.It was held by this Court in Manipur Admn. v. Thokchom
Bira Singh that “if there is no punishment for the
offence as a result of the prosecution, Article 20 (2) hasno application”. While the clause embodies the
principle of autrefois convict Section 300 of the CriminalProcedure Code combines both autrefois convict and
autrefois acquit.238. Section 300 has further widened the
protective wings by debarring a second trial against thesame accused on the same facts even for a different
offence if a different charge against him for suchoffence could have been made under Section 221 (1) of
the Code, or he could have been convicted for such
other offence under Section 221 (2) of the Code. In thiscontext it is useful to extract Section 221 of the Criminal
Procedure Code.“221. Where it is doubtful what
offence has been committed – (1) If asingle act or series of acts is of such a
nature that it is doubtful which of several
offences the facts which can be proved will
constitute, the accused may be charged::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:20 :::
revn14.07.odt 19/21with having committed all or any of such
offences, and any number of such chargesmay be tried at once; or he may be charged
in the alternative with having committed
some one of the said offences.(2) If in such a case the accused is
charged with one offence, and it appears in
evidence that he committed a differentoffence for which he might have been
charged under the provisions of sub-section(1), he may be convicted for the offence
which he is shown to have committed,although he was not charged with it.”
239. As the contours of the prohibition are
so widely enlarged it cannot be contended that the
second trial can escape therefrom on the mere premisethat some more allegations were not made in the first
trial. ….”
13. It is, however, clear that since accused Nos.1 and 2 have
played the role of planting two bombs at Nagpur and in addition for
execution of the conspiracy that was made at Jalgaon, they cannot
claim benefit of the said provision of Section 300 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has
rightly rejected their applications.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:20 :::
revn14.07.odt 20/21
14. The upshot of the above discussion is that the order made
by the learned Sessions Judge is legal, correct and proper and it is
better to quote relevant portion from paragraph No.24 thereof for the
sake of brevity.
“24. However, except accused no.1
Sheikh Rizwan and accused no.2 Khalid Asaf Khan, other
accused no.3,5,6,8,9,10 and 11 have no direct concern inrespect of the offence of actually planting bomb by
accused no.1 and 2 at Nagpur on 20-5-01 and on 24-5-01at two different places. Other accused are already tried
along-with accused no.1 and 2 of the offences committedby them at Jalgaon and the said incident and offence at
Jalgaon in respect of accused no.3 to 7 including accused
no.1 and 2 are different and they are already decided anddealt with. Therefore, joining accused no.3 to 11 again in
this trial for the same act committed by them at Jalgaonwill amount to double jeopardy under Sec. 300 of Cri.P.C.
against accused no.3 to 11. So far as the offences atNagpur is concerned, it is only the accused no.1 and 2
who are liable to be tried for offence of planting pipe
bombs on 20-5-01 and on 24-5-01 at Badkas Chowk and
at Naik Road respectively which is their independent actamounts to independent offences under Sec. 153-B of
I.P.C. for planting of bombs near the religious places with
intention to create prejudice, to maintain harmony
between Hindu and Muslim and to disturb the public
tranquility. ……..”
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:20 :::
revn14.07.odt 21/21
15. In the result, I make the following order.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.
(ii) The learned Sessions Judge shall now try the
said two trials bearing Session Trial No.84/2002 and Session Trial
No.85/2002 against accused No.1 – Sk. Rizwan Sk. Rashid and accused
No.2 – Khalid Alidkhan Ajamalkhan
ig and complete the same as
expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of one year
from today.
Learned A.P.Ps. make a request for suspending this
judgment for a period of six weeks.
Since the matter is pending since 2007, it would be
appropriate to suspend the effect of this judgment for a period of six
weeks from today to enable the State to take such steps as are
advised.
JUDGE
ssw
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:37:20 :::
