1 IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE CUM SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT, 2008, HYDERABAD Dated t !" t e T#e$t% N!$t da% &' Ja$(a)%, 20*+. PRESENT, S)! G.La-" .!/at !, I Add!t!&$a0 Met)&/&0!ta$ Se""!&$" J(d1e, C(. S/e2!a0 J(d1e '&) T)!a0 &' Ca"e" ($de) Nat!&$a0 I$3e"t!1at!&$ A1e$2% A2t, 2008, H%de)a4ad. SESSIONS CASE N&. 567820*0 Crime Number and police !tation. Name and description of t$e Accused -erson. : Cr.No.8/2010 of National Investigating Agency Ne" #el$i. %&I' no.()/2010 of *$avani Nagar police station +yderabad, : :A*,.o$d. /ia 0l +a1ue alias 2ani alias Abu Abdulla$ alias 2an .o$ammed !/o .o$d. !$areef Age 3( years 4ccupation: Cab #river '/o 1858563(/A/17 8umar"adi Colony 9di *a:aar *$avani Nagar +yderabad. A2,Abdul A:i: alias Abu 'e$an alias ;ali *aitul .<ua$ideen =e> training camp .u:affarabad %-a?istan 4ccupied 8as$mir, %$older of 95mail I# sigamono@ya$oo.com, %Absconding,. %>$e case against t$is Accused No.2 "as spit up and numbered as !.C.No.2/2011 at IA Additional C$ief .etropolitan .agistrate Court +yderabad and subse1uent to t$e transfer of t$is case t$is Court t$e split case pending against t$e Accused No.2 "as renumbered as !pecial !.C. No.1/2013 and it is pending,. -rosecution conducted by :!ri !. 'ama 'ao !enior -ublic -rosecutor for National Investigation Agency +yderabad. : !ri. .o$d. .u:afer 0lla$ 8$an Advocate. &or Accused No.1. :0nder !ection 26 %1*,%a, of Arms Act 1)6) read "it$ section 23 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B !ection 6 of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act 1)08 read "it$ section 23 of

Accused defended by 4ffences c$arged

2 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B 18 and 20 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B !ections 122 1205* and (1) I-C. -lea of t$e accused &inding of t$e Court :-leaded not guilty. :Accused No.1 is found not guilty for t$e offences under !ection 26%1*,%a, of Arms Act read "it$ section 23 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B !ections 20 and 18 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B !ections 122 and 1205* and (1) of I-C. Accused No.1 "as found guilty of t$e offence under !ection 6 %b, of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act 1)08. ,In t$e result t$e Accused No.1 is convicted under !ection 236%2, of Cr.-.C. and sentenced to under go 'igorous Imprisonment for seven years and also to pay fine of 's.1 000/5 %'upees 4ne >$ousands 4nly, in default of payment of fine to under go simple imprisonment for siC mont$s for t$e offence under !ection 6 %b,of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act 1)08. Accused No.1 is ac1uitted under !ection 236%1, of Cr.-C. for t$e offences under !ections 26%1*,%a, of Arms Act read "it$ !ection 23 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B !ections 20 and 18 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B and !ections 122 1205* and (1) of I-C. >$e period of detention already under gone by t$e Accused No.1 during t$e course of investigation and trial of t$is case s$all be set off against t$e sentence of imprisonment imposed by t$is Court in t$is case under !ection (28 of Cr.-.C. ..4s. 2 to 12 s$all be destroyed and ..4.1 "$ic$ is a fire arm s$all be sent to t$e Armory for disposal in accordance "it$ =a" after disposal of t$e split up case in !pecial !.C.No.1/2013 "$ic$ is pending against t$e Accused No.2.>$e Accused No.1 is informed t$at if $e is not $aving means to prefer an appeal against t$e <udgement of t$is court $e can avail free legal aid from A.-. !tate =egal !ervices Aut$ority t$roug$ t$e !uperintendent Central -rison concerned.

R E S UL T

3 20#D9.9N> 1. >$e Additional !uperintendent of -olice National Investigating Agency Ne" #el$i $as laid a c$arge s$eet against t$e above named accused for t$e offences under !ections 1205* 122 123 12(5A I-C and !ections 17 18 18 %b, 20 23 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B and !ection 26 %1*,%a, of Arms Act and !ection 6 of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act in crime no.8/2010 of National Investigating Agency Ne" #el$i %originally crime "as registered under &irst Information 'eport no.()/2010 of *$avani Nagar -olice !tation +yderabad, "it$ t$e follo"ing allegations:5 An organi:ation namely =as?ar 9 >oiba %=e>, is a terrorist organi:ation "$ic$ "as banned by t$e Dovernment of India in terms of !c$edule of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B. 4n 3.6.2010 -..ad$u?ar !"amy Inspector of -olice !pecial Investigation >eam +yderabad "$o "as investigating t$e 4deon #eluC >$eater +yderabad *last Case in crime no.231/2007 of C$i??adpally police station on receiving credible information $e along "it$ $is team on specific identification appre$ended one .o$d. /ia 0l +a1ue son of .o$d. !$areef "$o is t$e accused No.1 in t$is case at about 1(.60 $ours and at t$at time t$e accused "as found in possession of a $and grenade and ot$er material documents. >$en on disclosure statement by t$e accused a searc$ at $is residential premises "as conducted "$ic$ lead to t$e recovery of anot$er $and grenade pistol "it$ maga:ine siC numbers of live cartridges and ot$er documents. >$en on t$e report of -..ad$u?ar !"amy Inspector of -olice !pecial Investigation >eam +yderabad a case in crime no.()/2010 "as registered under !ections 1205* 122 123 12(5A I-C and !ections 17 18 18%b, 20 23 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B and !ection 26 %1*,%a, of Arms Act and !ection 6 of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act and t$e

sei:ed items and disclosure memos "ere sent to t$e Court. !ubse1uently in

4 compliance of t$e order dated 1).B.2010 of .inistry of +ome Affairs Dovernment of India a case in crime no.8/2010 dated 22.B.2010 "as registered against t$e accused for t$e above said offences by t$e National Investigating Agency. 4riginal first information report "as sent to t$e Court. >$e accused confessed t$at $e entered into criminal conspiracy "it$ Accused No.2 Abdul A:eeb a -a?istani =e> operator and ot$er =e> operators outside India to "age "ar against India branding India as 8afir/+indu country and to indulge in terrorist acts by using eCplosives arms and ammunitions and some funds provided by Abdul A:i: of -a?istan for terrorist activities. >$e accused on or about t$e year 2002 "ent to -a?istan illegally and got trained in *aitul .u<a$ideen %=e>, >raining Center at .usaffarabad -a?istan for about (6 days in $andling "eapons namely A85(B pistol $and grenades using of eCplosives bro"sing of Internet and c$ec?ing of e5mails along "it$ ot$er trainees to "age "ar against India by 2i$ad. Abudl A:i: alias Abu 'e$an alias ;ali arranged tic?et for t$e accused no.1 from !audi Arabia to Ne" #el$i via 8arac$i in -a?istan International Airlines. +e "as received by =e> cadre "$o managed airport officials to ta?e $im out of airport illegally "it$out stamping / c$ec?ing of t$e passport of accused no.1 E .o$d. /ia 0l +a1ue. Accused no. 1 deposited $is Indian passport "it$ =e> terrorist. In pursuance of t$e said criminal conspiracy t$e accused no.1 on or about 4ctober 2002 infiltrated bac? to India after t$e training t$roug$ -oonc$ !ector of 2ammu and 8as$mir. +e as a =e> operator belonging to sleeper cell at +yderabad in India "as in touc$ "it$ Abdul A:i: alias Ab u 'e$an alias ;ali a -a?istani =e> operator. In pursuance of t$e said criminal conspiracy Accused No.1 5.o$d /ia 0l +a1ue on t$e instructions of Accused No.2 by name Abdul A:i: visited #el$i and stayed t$ere from 2.12.2006 to (.12.2006 in t$e guest $ouse near 2ama .asid by revealing $is identity as .o$d. +abib son of .o$d. !$areif resident

5 of !antos$ nagar +yderabad district and collected four $and grenades pistol "it$ maga:ine and siC live cartridges t$roug$ un?no"n courier at t$e be$est of Accused No.2 t$e -a?istani =e> operators. In pursuance of t$e said criminal conspiracy Accused no.1 lobbed one $and grenade on B.6.2007 at about 10.16 pm inside t$e 4deon #eluC >$eater +yderabad and dropped anot$er $and grenade in t$e dustbin outside t$e t$eater. >$e grenade eCploded and resulted in t$e in<ury to t"o persons. Accused no.1 $as completed tas? successfully and informed t$e same to Abdul A:i: E Accused No.2 "$o remained in touc$ "it$ Accused no.1. >$ereafter t$e Accused no.1 "aited for c$ance to do so. ;$ile $e "as moving "it$ $and grenade $e "as

appre$ended at 1(.60 $ours on 3.6.2010 near Anmol +otel +yderabad. >$e re1uired sanction for prosecuting t$e accused no.1 under !ection 1)7 of

Cr.-.C. And !ection (6%1, of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B Arms Act and 9Cplosive !ubstances Act $as been obtained from t$e Dovernment of India.

2. >$e case "as ta?en on file against t$e accused nos. 1 and 2 under !ections 122 123 12(5A I-C !ection 26 %1*,%a, of Arms Act !ections 17 18 18%b, 20 23 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B by t$e =earned

.etropolitan !essions 2udge +yderabad. Non *ailable ;arrant against Accused No.2 "as issued.

3. ;$en t$e case is pending for appearance of bot$ t$e accused a"aiting eCecution of non bailable "arrant against Accused no.2 as per t$e notification publis$ed in Da:ette of India dated 1.).2010 t$e leaned IA Additional .etropolitan !essions 2udge +yderabad "as notified as !pecial 2udge for trial of t$e offences pertaining to National Investigating Agency Act 2008.

6 >$en t$is case "as transferred to t$e !pecial Court for trial of Cases under National Investigation Act i.e. IA Additional .etropolitan !essions 2udge Court +yderabad. !ubse1uently after production of t$e accused no.1 before t$e t$en !pecial Court i.e. IA Additional .etropolitan !essions 2udge +yderabad and "$en t$e non bailable "arrant against accused no.2 "as pending t$e t$en !pecial Court $as found t$at t$ere "as no possibility to appre$end accused no.2 "it$out possible delay. +ence t$e case against accused no.2 "as split up and numbered as !essions Case No.2/2011.

(. >$en after production of accused no.1 before t$e t$en !pecial Court i.e. IA Additional .etropolitan !essions 2udge +yderabad copies of t$e case record "ere furnis$ed to $im as re1uired under !ection 20B of Cr.-.C.

6. >$e learned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor for t$e prosecution and t$e learned Counsel for t$e accused no.1 "ere $eard and accused no.1 "as eCamined under section 228 of Cr.-.C. C$arges under sections 26%1*,%a, of Arms Act 1)6) read "it$ section 23 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B !ection 6 of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act 1)08 read "it$ section 23 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B !ections 20 and 18 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B !ection 122 1205* (1) I-C are framed against t$e accused no.1 read over and eCplained to t$e accused no.1 and $e pleaded not guilty. +ence t$e case "as ordered for trial.

7. #uring t$e course of trial before t$e t$e t$en !pecial Court i.e. IA Additional .etropolitan !essions 2udge +yderabad -"s 1 to 2( "ere eCamined and 9Cs.-1 to -78 "ere mar?ed. !ubse1uently as per t$e Central Dovernment Notification I Additional .etropolitan !essions 2udgeFs Court +yderabad "as

7 designated as !pecial Court for trial of t$e case instituted under National Investigation Agency Act. >$en t$is case "as transferred from IA Additional .etropolitan !essions 2udge Court +yderabad to t$is Court for trial. >$e split case pending against t$e Accused No.2 is renumbered as !pecial !essions Case No.1/2013 on t$e file of t$is Court.

B. After production of t$e Accused no.1 from t$e Central -rison ;arangal continuation of trial "as conducted before t$is court and -"s 26 to 30 "ere eCamined and 9Cs.-7) to -10( "ere mar?ed and in all ..4s.1 to 12 mar?ed.

8. After closure of t$e prosecution side evidence Accused no.1 "as eCamined under !ection 313 Cr.-.C. so as to enable $im to eCplain t$e incriminating circumstances appearing in t$e evidence of prosecution "itnesses against $im t$e accused denied t$e allegations and pleaded not guilty. Accused no.1 furt$er stated t$at $e is only a cab driver. ;$en $e "as ta?ing $is "ife to admit $er in t$e $ospital police $ave ta?en $im by misrepresentation and ?ept $im in illegal custody for four days and foisted t$is case. +e also stated t$at after ?eeping $im in illegal custody for four days t$e police $ave ta?en $im to $is $ouse and $ave ta?en driving licence ban? c$e1ues travelling licence pan card passport from $is $ouse. Counter Intelligence 4fficer $as come to $is $ouse on t$at day. +e $as seen -"1 .ad$u?ar !"amy Inspector of police for t$e first time at !pecial Investigation >eam 4ffice after producing $im before t$e court after detaining for four days in illegal custody. +e applied for passport only for one time and $e did not apply for passport for second time. +e furt$er stated t$at in t$e year 2002 $e returned from !audi Arabia and t$en on"ards $e "as running a $otel and closed it later. >$en $e "as "or?ing as driver. >$en $e too? seven ve$icles on lease and running t$em by

8 $iring t$e #rivers. +e run t$ose ve$icles for five years. In t$e year 2010 on one day in a mont$ "$en $e "as at $ome "$en $e "as preparing to ta?e $is pregnant "ife to $ospital $is brot$er in la" informed to $im t$at some body came for $im. >$en $e came do"n from $is $ouse in t$e first floor and t$ere "ere t"o police and t$ey called $im to police station on t$e ground t$at t$ey "ant to eCamine $im in connection "it$ a complaint preferred by a girl stating t$at $e "as $arassing $er on p$one and $ave ta?en $im to a guest $ouse in *an<ara +ills. >$ere police 1uestioned a boy and $e $as stated on seeing $im t$at $e "as not t$e person. >$en $e "as ta?en to .ed$cal guest $ouse by t$e police. +e "as interrogated and at t$at time $e stated t$at $e does not ?no" anyt$ing. >$en t$ey detained $im for more t$an t$ree days and beat $im and as?ed $im to accept t$e offence. +e does not ?no" "$at is grenade at all. >$e police beat $im indiscriminately and t$ey $ave obtained $is signatures on "$ite papers and $and"ritings on "$ite papers. =ater $ave as?ed $im to "al? properly and not to disclose about t$eir beating $im and t$ey produced $im before t$e court. At t$e time of arrest t$e inspector of police .ad$u?ar !"amy "as not t$ere. +e sa" t$e inspector .adu?ar !"amy "$en t$e case "as given to !pecial Investigation >eam police. Assistant Commissioner of -olice -rab$a?ar 'eddy never ta?en $im to any place outside. +e as?ed $im for t"o times "$en $e "as in custody. >$is case $as been foisted against $im. +e did not commit any offences. +e did business "it$ $ard earned money. +e $as performed marriages of $is t"o sisters and t"o elder brot$ers.

). N&# t e /&!$t" '&) dete).!$at!&$ a)e: %1,G;$et$er t$e prosecution $as proved t$e guilt of t$e accused no.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for t$e offence punis$able under sections 26%1*,%a, of Arms Act read "it$ !ection 23 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B

9 and "$et$er t$e accused is liable to be punis$ed for t$e offences punis$able under t$e above sections of la"H %2,G;$et$er t$e prosecution $as proved t$e guilt of t$e accused no.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for t$e offence punis$able under section 6 of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act 1)08 read "it$ !ection 23 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B and "$et$er t$e accused is liable to be punis$ed for t$e offences punis$able under t$e above sections of la"HI %3,G;$et$er t$e prosecution $as proved t$e guilt of t$e accused no.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for t$e offence punis$able under section !ection 20 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B and "$et$er t$e accused is liable to be punis$ed for t$e offence punis$able under t$e above section of la"HI %(,G;$et$er t$e prosecution $as proved t$e guilt of t$e accused no.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for t$e offence punis$able under section !ection 18 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B and "$et$er t$e accused is liable to be punis$ed for t$e offence punis$able under t$e above section of la"HI %6,G;$et$er t$e prosecution $as proved t$e guilt of t$e accused no.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for t$e offence punis$able under section !ection 122 of I-C and "$et$er t$e accused is liable to be punis$ed for t$e offence punis$able under t$e above section of la"HI %7,G;$et$er t$e prosecution $as proved t$e guilt of t$e accused no.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for t$e offence punis$able under section !ection 1205* of I-C and "$et$er t$e accused is liable to be punis$ed for t$e offence punis$able under t$e above section of la"HI %B,G;$et$er t$e prosecution $as proved t$e guilt of t$e accused no.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for t$e offence punis$able under section !ection (1) of I-C and "$et$er t$e accused is liable to be punis$ed for t$e offence punis$able under t$e above section of la"HI

10 10.+eard t$e =earned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor for t$e prosecution and t$e learned counsel for t$e accused no.1. ;ritten arguments filed by t$e learned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor. ;ritten arguments filed by t$e learned counsel for t$e accused no.1. !upplementary "ritten arguments "ere also filed for t$e prosecution by t$e !pecial -ublic -rosecutor.

11.POINTS NOS.9* t& 7::5 -erused t$e evidence of -"s 1 to 30 and 9Cs.-1 to -10( and ..4s. 1 to 12. -"1 is -..ad$u?ar !"amy Inspector of police !pecial Investigating >eam +yderabad is one of t$e investigating officers. -"2 ..8aruna?ar t$e t$en >a$asildar *andlaguda .andal is one of t$e -anc$ayat$dars for t$e arrest of t$e accused and sei:ure of incriminating material. -"3 #r.>...!uri t$e t$en Inspector of police *omb !1uad at +yderabad "$o destroyed t"o grenades involved in t$is case. -"( Abdul Javi is t$e son of Abdul !$u?oor land lady rented t$e $ouse to t$e accused no.1. -"6 ..Ab$i<it$ 'eddy "$o "as running Internet cafe from "$ere t$e accused no.1 said to $ave sent e5mails. -"7 .o$d. .udassir 8$an "$o run anot$er Internet Cafe from "$ere also t$e accused no.1 $as sent e5mails. -"B 8.!rinivas 'ao +ead %4perations, 'oyal *an? of !cotland "$ere t$e accused "as $aving ban? account. -"8 .od$. !adi1 Ali "$o is running mobile rec$arge s$op at 'ein *a:aar. -") #r. Aen?ates"arlu !cientific officer in And$ra -rades$ &orensic !cience =aboratory +yderabad "$o eCamined t$e fire arm and live cartridges involved in t$is case. -"10 .o$d. Arif classmate of t$e accused no.1. -"11 .a$es$ one of t$e panc$ayat$dars in "$ose presence t$e print outs of e5mails sent by t$e accused "ere ta?en. -"12 ..'ad$i?a one of t$e bomb blast victims at 4deon #eluC >$eater. -"13 !atis$ C$and t$e t$en #eputy !uperintendent of police Information and >ec$nology Ne" #el$i "$o provided computer "it$ Internet facility to

11 obtain t$e print outs of e5mails sent by t$e accused no.1. -"1( As$o? 8umar *a"alia t$e t$en 0nder !ecretary .inistry of +ome Affairs Dovernment of India "$o for"arded t$e proposals for sanctioning of t$e prosecution against t$e accused. -"16 #.An<aneyulu one of t$e panc$ayat$dars for t$e sei:ure of incriminating material at Ais$nu Internet Cafe of -"6. -"17 .o$d. .oinuddin +assan 8$an Assistant #irector &orensic !cience =aboratory +yderabad "$o eCamined t$e sample sent by t$e #eputy Commissioner of police #etective #epartment +yderabad and issued $is opinion -"1B *.A.!.!iva -rasad !cientific 4fficer And$ra -rades$ !tate &orensic !cience =aboratory "$o analy:ed t$e $ard discs sent by #eputy Commissioner of police ##. CC!. +yderabad and gave $is opinion. -"18 8.!atya -rasad t$e t$en c$ief manager And$ra *an? .e$dipatnam branc$ "$ere t$e accused no.1 "as $aving ban? account. -"1) 'a?es$ 8umar o"ner of s"eets corner #el$i "$ere t$e accused no.1 purc$ased s"eet boC. -"20 .o$d. !$abuddin o"ner of private guest $ouse in Ne" #el$i "$ere t$e accused no.1 said to $ave been stayed for t"o days "it$ fictitious name. -"12 8is$ore .o$an C$atlani t$e t$en manager of ICICI *an? "$ere t$e accused "as $aving account. -"22 t$e t$en Inspector of police *$avani nagar police station "$o registered t$e report of -"1 under 9C.-1 as 9C.-(B. -"23 8.Aana<a Aen?ataramana passport granting officer 'egional -assport Aut$ority +yderabad "$o issued copies of t$e application forms and

connecting documents of accused no.1. -"2( !ud$es$ 8umar !arma one of t$e panc$ayat$dars for t$e sei:ure of customers register at t$e private guest $ouse in Ne" #el$i. -"26 -.Aenugopal 'ao !cientist5* in Central &orensic !cience =aboratory 'amant$apur +yderabad "$o eCamined t$e $and "ritings in t$e 1uestioned and standard documents and issued opinion and subse1uent documents and issued opinion. -"27 8is$anlal one of t$e

12 -anc$ayat$dars for t$e sei:ure of register at a private guest $ouse in Ne" #el$i and also for t$e sei:ure of empty s"eet boC from t$e said s$op of -"1). -"2B ..-rab$a?ar 'eddy t$e t$en Assistant Commissioner of -olice !pecial Investigation >eam +yderabad one of t$e investigating officers. -"28 8.*aburao t$e t$en assistant commissioner of police Central Crime !tation #etective #epartment +yderabad one of t$e investigating officer. -"2) Ais$al Darg Additional !uperintendent of -olice National Investigating Agency Ne" #el$i one of t$e investigating officers "$o filed c$arge s$eet after completion of investigation. -"30 Dul:ar Natara<an #istrict .agistrate +yderabad "$o issued sanction orders to prosecute t$e accused nos. 1 and 2 in t$is case.

12.It is t$e case of t$e prosecution t$at t$e accused no.1 5 .o$d./ia 0l +a1ue "as indoctrinated into =e> a terrorist organi:ation "$ic$ "as declared as unla"ful organi:ation by t$e Dovernment of India under section 2%l,%m, and !ection 36 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B by t$e accused no.2 by name Abudl A:i: alias Abu 'e$an alias ;ali "$o "as residing in !audi Arabia a -a?istani national. It is also t$e case of t$e prosecution t$at t$e accused no.1 t$oug$ "ent to !audi Arabia by legal means yet $e returned to Indian by illegal means "it$out using $is Indian passport after getting training in -a?istan. It is also t$e case of t$e prosecution t$at t$ere "as blast at 4deon #eluC >$eater +yderabad "$ic$ is t$e sub<ect matter of crime no.231/2007 of C$i??adapally police station +yderabad. 4n 3.6.2010 -"1 .ad$u?ar !"amy inspector of police !pecial Investigation >eam +yderabad "$ile investigating t$e said case in crime no.23/2007 of C$i??adpaly police station +yderabad on information along "it$ $is staff and independent -anc$ayat$dars proceeded to t$e place near +otel Anmol +yderabad at

13 2.30 pm and detained t$e accused no.1 in t$e presence of panc$ayat$dars and interrogated $im and on $is confession and on personal searc$ $e found one $and grenade and some documents and sei:ed t$em under cover of a confession cum sei:ure report and on confession leading to recovery t$e accused no.1 lead t$em to $is $ouse situated at 8ummar"adi 9di *a:aar *$avani Nagar +yderabad at 6.00 pm and at $is $ouse t$e accused no.1 $as produced anot$er $and grenade one pistol "it$ maga:ine siC live cartridges along "it$ ot$er documents "$ic$ "ere sei:ed by t$e said inspector of police E -"1 in t$e presence of some panc$ayat$dars under same sei:ure report.. >$en -"1 produced t$e accused no.1 and t$e sei:ed material before t$e !tation +ouse 4fficer *$avani Nagar police station +yderabad "$ic$ "as registered as crime no.()/2010 and on t$e neCt day t$e accused "as produced before t$e court. !ubse1uently t$e case "as transferred to t$e Assistant Commissioner of -olice !pecial Investigation >eam +yderabad for investigation. 4n B.6.2010 -"2B Assistant

Commissioner of -olice !pecial Investigation >eam $as ta?en t$e accused to police custody "it$ t$e permission of t$e court and interrogated $im and at t$e instance of accused no.1 t"o $ard discs and one register from !ri Ais$nu Internet Cafe belonging to Ab$i<it$ 'eddy %-"6, "ere sei:ed in t$e presence of panc$ayat$dars and t"o more $ard discs and statement of account "ere sei:ed from Amman Communications of -"7 at Imam *ada 'ein *a:aar in t$e presence of -anc$ayat$dars. #uring t$e course of investigation t$e said -"2B obtained statements of accounts of t$e ban? accounts of t$e accused and t$e sei:ed $and grenades "ere sent to *omb #isposals 9Cpert 5-"3 "$o distructed t$em and t$e c$emical substances "ere for"arded to &orensic !cience =aboratory and t$e sei:ed pistol and ammunition "ere also sent to t$e &orensic !cience =aboratory for analysis. !ubse1uently in vie" of t$e

14 gravity of t$e offences involved in t$is case t$e case $as been entrusted to t$e National Investigating Agency for continuation of investigation. #uring t$e course of investigation -"2) C$ief Investigating 4fficer National

Investigating Agency Ais$al Darg interrogated t$e accused no.1 in t$e presence of -anc$ayat$dars and on t$e confession of t$e Accused No.1 95 mails retrieved from t$e in boC and out boC of t$e 95mail addresses of t$e accused "it$ t$e assistance of -"13 #eputy !uperintendent of -olice Information >ec$nology National Investigating Agency Ne" #el$i. 4n

confession of t$e accused no.1 t$e Customers5'egister at !$abuddin Duest +ouses Ne" #el$i "as sei:ed from -"20 .o$d. !$abuddin and s"eet boC "as sei:ed from -"1) 'a?es$ 8umar o"ner of 8ris$na !"eet Corner Ne" #el$i. #uring t$e course of investigation -"2) also obtained passport and application for passport submitted by t$e accused from t$e Assistant -assport 4fficer +yderabad. After completion of investigation and after obtaining

sanction orders to prosecute t$e accused for t$e offences under !ection 6 of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act and 26%1*,%a, of Arms Act as re1uired under !ection 1)7 Cr.-.C. and !ection (6%1, of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B and c$arge s$eet "as filed.

13.>$e case of t$e accused is total denial and t$is case "as foisted against $im.

1(.>o prove its t$e prosecution $as eCamined -"s 1 to 30 and $as mar?ed 9Cs.-1 to -10( and ..4s. 1 to 12.

16.It is t$e contention of t$e learned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor for t$e prosecution t$at it is an admitted fact t$at t$e Accused No.1 $ad been to !audi Arabia and $e "as $aving Indian5passport issued by t$e competent

15 aut$ority and Accused No.1 neit$er produced nor given any eCplanation for $is not producing passport issued to $im "$ic$ clearly s$o"s t$at t$e accused $as applied for anot$er passport for t$e second time "it$ false information as deposed by -"23 'egional -assport 4fficer. It is also t$e contention of t$e learned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor for t$e prosecution t$at t$e prosecution by eCamining -"s 1 to 30 and eC$ibiting -1 to -10( $as proved t$at t$e Accused No.1 at t$e time of arrest "as in possession of one $and grenade and ot$er material and subse1uently on t$e confession of Accused No.1 leading to recovery Accused No.1 $as ta?en -"1 and $is staff and panc$ayat$dars to $is $ouse and $as produced one $and grenade on pistol siC live rounds and ot$er incriminating material and t$ey "ere also recovered from $is possession by eCamining -"6 t$e o"ner of Ais$nu Internet Cafe and -"7 t$e person in5 c$arge of Amman Communications Internet Cafe t$e prosecution $as proved t$at t$e Accused No.1 "as using t$e Internet facility in t$ose Internet Cafes to communicate "it$ Accused No.2 "$o is in abroad. It is also t$e contention of t$e =earned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor t$at by eCamining -"13 !atis$ C$and #eputy !uperintendent of -olice Information >ec$nology #ivision National Investigation Agency t$e prosecution $as proved t$at t$e Accused No.1 $imself $as opened t"o e5mail accounts by using $is e5mail Ids and pass "ords "$ic$ "ere in $is eCclusive ?no"ledge and t$ose printouts of t$e e5 mails "ere eC$ibited as 9Cs.-30 and -31 "$ic$ s$o"s t$at t$e Accused No.1 $as communicated "it$ t$e absconding Accused No.2 "$o is in abroad in code language. *y eCamining -") #r.A.Aen?ates"arlu !cientific 4fficer in *allistic !ection And$ra -rades$ &orensic !cience =aboratory t$e

prosecution $as proved t$at t$e pistol t$at "as sei:ed from t$e possession of Accused No.1 is a company made B.73 mm caliber %.auser,. >$e prosecution by eCamining -"3 #r. >...!uri Inspector of -olice *omb !1uad $as proved

16 t$at t"o $and grenades "ere destroyed as it "as not possible to diffuse t$em after obtaining permission from t$e court and $e $as pic?ed up samples from t$e remnants of t$e destroyed grenades *y eCamining -"17 Assistant #irector &orensic !cience =aboratory +yderabad t$e prosecution $as

proved t$at t$e sample sent to $im in a bottle "$ic$ "as collected by -"3 is '#K "$ic$ is $ig$ly eCplosive substance. >$erefore it is clear t$at t$e $and grenades t$at "ere sei:ed from t$e possession of t$e Accused No.1 "ere $ig$ly eCplosive grenades. !ince t$e Accused No.1 "as in possession of t$em it is clear t$at $e "as $aving intention to cause eCtensive damage to t$e public property and also to t$e lives of innocent people "$ic$ is terrorist act. >$e acts committed by t$e Accused No.1 are violative of provisions of Arms Act and 9Cplosive !ubstances Act and also 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B. It is also t$e contention of t$e =earned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor for t$e prosecution t$at t$e evidence of -"2) Ais$al Darg is clear t$at $and grenades t$at "ere sei:ed from t$e Accused No.1 are similar to t$at of $and grenades t$at "ere eCploded at 4deon #eluCe >$eater blast in +yderabad and also t$e grenades t$at "ere sei:ed at .umbai and #el$i. It is also t$e contention of t$e learned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor for t$e prosecution t$at once t$e possession of arms and eCplosives "it$ t$e accused is proved it is t$e burden on t$e accused t$at it "as not a conscious possession t$e accused $o" $e "as came to be in possession of t$e same is "it$in $is special ?no"ledge. >$erefore !ection 107 of 9vidence Act comes into play and if $e fails to prove t$e same $e is liable for punis$ment for t$e possession of arms and ammunition. +ence t$e prosecution $as proved t$e guilt of t$e accused no.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for t$e offences alleged against $im.

17 17.It is t$e contention of t$e learned counsel for Accused No.1 t$at t$e prosecution $as failed to prove t$e possession of Arms and eCplosive substances in $is possession. >$e arms and ammunition said to $ave been sei:ed from t$e possession of Accused No.1 "ere not pac?ed and sealed at t$e time of sei:ure. >$ere is no evidence to indicate "$et$er t$e arms and ammunition and eCplosive substances said to $ave been sei:ed from t$e possession "as ?ept in safe custody and t$ere "as no possibility for any body to tamper "it$ t$em before t$ey "ere sent to t$e 9Cpert for testing. >$erefore Accused No.1 is entitled for benefit of doubt for t$e offence under !ection 6 of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act and 26%1*,%a, of Arms act. It is also t$e contention of t$e learned counsel for t$e accused no.1 t$at t$ere is absolutely no evidence produced by t$e prosecution to s$o" t$at t$e Accused No.1 is a member of any terrorist organi:ation especially =e> %=as$?er 9 >aiba, and "itnesses eCamined by t$e prosecution $ave not stated t$at t$e Accused No.1 is intended to "age "ar against t$e Dovernment of India. >$erefore !ection 122 of I-C is not proved by t$e prosecution against Accused No.1. It is also t$e contention of t$e learned counsel for Accused No.1 t$at none of t$e "itnesses eCamined by t$e prosecution $ave stated any fact "$ic$ attracted t$e ingredients of !ection 18 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B. >$ere is also no evidence produced by t$e prosecution to s$o" t$at Accused No.1 $as involved in any terrorist activities and t$at t$e Accused No.1 is member of terrorist gang or organi:ation. !o !ection 20 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B also not proved against t$e Accused No.1. It is also t$e contention of t$e learned counsel for Accused No.1 t$at 9Cs.-30 and -31 t$e printouts of 95mails said to $ave been sent or received by t$e Accused No.1 are not proved to $ave been sent or received by t$e Accused No.1. >$e alleged criminal conspiracy by Accused No.1 "it$ Accused No.2 Abdul A:i: is

18 also not proved. !o prosecution $as failed to prove t$e offence under It is also t$e contention of

!ection 1205* of I-C against t$e Accused No.1.

t$e learned counsel for Accused No.1 t$at t$ere is absolutely no evidence on record to conclude t$at t$e Accused No.1 $as stayed in a private guest $ouse at Ne" #el$i "it$ fictitious name eCcept t$e oral evidence of -"20.

>$erefore t$e prosecution also $as failed to prove t$e guilt of t$e Accused No.1 for t$e offence under !ection (1) I-C and pleaded for t$e ac1uittal of Accused No.1.

1B.In reply t$e learned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor for t$e prosecution submitted t$at -"23 8.Aana<a Aen?atrama -assport Dranting 4fficer in 'egional -assport 4ffice +yderabad $as deposed t$at passport "as issued to

Accused No.1 on 1B.2.1))6 vide -assport No.>)(1(6). +er evidence also s$o"s t$at same Accused No.1 .o$d. /ia 0l +a1ue son of .o$d. !$areef $as applied for passport in t$e year 2007 but no passport "as issued on t$at application since t$ere "as adverse police report. !o it is clear t$at Accused No.1 $as applied for second passport. Accused No.1 $as not given any eCplanation for $is applying for passport for t$e second time "$ic$ is eCclusive special ?no"ledge of $im to eCplain t$at "$at $appened to $is first passport. ;it$ t$e evidence of -"s 1 to 30 and "it$ t$e contents of 9Cs.-1 to -10( t$e prosecution $as establis$ed t$e guilt of t$e accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for t$e offences alleged against $im.

18.>o prove t$at t$ere "as valid sanction to prosecute t$e accused for t$e offences under !ection 6 of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act and !ection 26 %1*,%a, of Arms Act t$e prosecution $as eCamined -"30 and $as mar?ed 9C.-10(. In $is evidence -"30 Dul<ar Natara<an t$e t$en #istrict Collector cum

19 #istrict .agistrate +yderabad $as deposed t$at on re1uisition from t$e Assistant Commissioner of -olice !pecial Investigation >eam $e $as

perused t$e record of investigation placed before $im in t$is case and after applying $is mind $e $as accorded sanction to prosecute t$e said accused under !ection B of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act and 3) of Arms Act and punis$able under !ection 6 of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act and !ection 26%1*, %a, of Arms Act under 9C.-10(. >$e said sanction orders under 9C.-10( "as accorded to prosecute eleven accused in crime no.()/2010 of *$avani Nagar -olice !tation +yderabad. >$e said case in crime no.()/2010 of *$avani Nagar police station "as subse1uently entrusted to National Investigation Agency for investigation and it is re5registered as &I' 8/2010 of National Investigation Agency. !o in vie" of t$e evidence of -"30 and 9C.-10( t$ere is valid sanction from t$e Central Dovernment to prosecute t$e accused for t$e offences punis$able under !ections !ection 6 of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act and !ection 26%1*,%a, of Arms Act.

1).>o prove t$at t$e c$arge under !ection 26%1*,%a, of Arms Act and !ection 6 of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act t$e prosecution $as eCamined -"s 1 2 3 12 17 and 22. In $is evidence -"1 -..ad$ua?ara !"amy t$e t$en Inspector of -olice !pecial Investigation >eam $as stated t$at on information relating to t$e blast case in 4deon #eluCe >$eater $e secured mediators -"2 and one ..#evadass #eputy >a$asildar *andlaguda +yderabad and proceeded along "it$ $is staff and mediators to 9di *a:aar and par?ed t$eir ve$icles ad<acent to Anmol +otel in a lane and reac$ed a pan s$op opposite to Anmol +otel and at about 2.(0 pm t$ey surrounded t$e suspect Accused No.1 and on p$ysical searc$ of $im t$ey found a $and grenade in a polyt$ene cover and also found some papers documents in $is pant. >$en on t$e 1uestioning

20 of t$e accused no.1 $e confessed t$e offence in t$is case. >$en $e sei:ed t$e said $and grenade and one driving licence of t$e Accused No.1 %9C.-1, pan card of Accused No.1 %9C.-2, and registration certificate card of t"o "$eeler "it$ t$e name of Accused No.1 %9C.-3, under cover of confession5 cum5sei:ure5panc$anama t$e admissible portion of it is 9C.-(. >$en on t$e confession of t$e accused No.1 t$ey "ere lead to t$e $ouse of t$e Accused No.1 in 8ummar"adi and t$ere t$e accused no.1 "ent to $is room and pic?ed up a cover and it contained one $and grenade one pistol %..4.1, siC live cartridges %..4.2, and $anded over t$em to $im and t$ey ?ept eac$ of t$em in a separate covers affiCed panc$ "itnesses I# slips. >$en t$e Accused No.1 also produced c$e1ue boo? of ICICI *an? %9C.-6, C$e1ue *oo? of A*N Amro *an? %9C.-7, -ass *oo? of And$ra *an? %9C.-B, 9lectricity *ill %9C.-8, and domestic gas connection card %9C.-), and t$ey "ere sei:ed under sei:ure report under %9C.-10,. >$en $e $as ta?en t$e accused and t$e

sei:ed property to *$avani Nagar -olice !tation +yderabad and preferred a complaint to t$e !tation +ouse 4fficer *$avani Nagar -olice !tation and also $anded over t$e Accused No.1 and t$e sei:ed articles and documents to $im. #uring cross eCamination t$is -"1 $as stated t$at "$en ..4.1 pistol "as recovered it "as ?ept in a cover and stapled and it "as not sealed "it$ sealing "aC. +e admitted t$at in 9C.-10 sei:ure report $e $as not noted about $is putting ..4.1 in a cover and stapled it. In 9C.-10 t$e sei:ure report under "$ic$ ..4s. 1 and 2 and 9Cs.p6 to -) "ere sei:ed ..4.1 "as not described as pistol. It is simply noted as one fire arm $aving star mar? on bot$ sides of t$e butt and t$e maga:ine "$ic$ is fiCed from t$e bottom side of t$e butt. In $is evidence -"1 $as admitted t$at from pistol to A8(B t$ey all fire arms. *y loo?ing at all normal fire arms $e can distinguis$ one from t$e ot$er. ;$en -"1 is able to distinguis$ one fire arm from t$e ot$er fire arm "$y $e

21 $as not mentioned t$at ..4.1 as pistol in t$e sei:ure report under 9C.-10 is not eCplained. +e also stated during cross eCamination t$at by loo?ing at a "eapon $e can distinguis$ t$e company made fire arm or t$e country made. ;$en -"1 is able to distinguis$ t$e country made fire arm and company made fire arm "$y $e $as not described as country made or company made in 9C.-10 is also not eCplained. In $is evidence -"1 $as specifically

admitted t$at ..4.1 "as not sealed "it$ sealing "aC.

20.In a case bet"een 2asbir !ing$ A. !tate of -un<ab reported in 1))8 C'I.=.2. 2073 %In Criminal Appeal No.1087/1))B, on "$ic$ t$e learned counsel for t$e Accused No.1 relied on t$e +onourable !upreme Court observed Having gone through the evidence, we find that the contention raised on behalf of the appellant is correct and, the cartridges did not have any mark or any number on them and after seizing the same police had not thought it fit to wrap them and apply a seal over them. No explanation in that behalf was given by the prosecution witnesses. This aspect was not considered by the trial ourt. !s the identity of the incriminating articles has not been established by the prosecution we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant both under "ection # of the T!$! !ct and %# of !rms !ct and ac&uit him of all the charges levelled against him.' In anot$er case bet"een !a$ib !ing$ A. !tate of -un<ab reported in 1))B C'I.=.2. 2)B8 on "$ic$ t$e learned counsel for t$e accused relied on t$e +onourable !upreme Court observed (e next find from the record that the arms and ammunitions allegedly recovered from the appellant and seized wee not packeted an sealed . )n !mar*it "ingh v. "tate of +un*ab, ,--# ./0 " %,1 this ourt has observed that non2sealing of the revolvers at the spot is a serious infirmity because the possibility of tampering with the weapon cannot be ruled out. 3rom the record we further find that there is no evidence to indicate with whom the revolver was after its seizure by +.(./ till it was sent to the !rms 4xpert for testing through constable 5aita "ingh. This missing link also weaken the prosecution case. 3or all these infirmities we are of the view, that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.' In t$e present case also investigating officer -" "$o is alleged to $ave been

22 sei:ed t$e pistol %..4.1, and live cartridges %..4.2, $and grenade from t$e possession of Accused No.1 $as not c$osen to seal t$em pac? t$em separately "it$ sealing "aC to avoid tampering of t$e same till it "as sent to t$e 9Cpert for testing.

21.It is t$e contention of t$e learned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor t$at in t$is case -"1 "$o recovered ..4s. 1 and 2 and t"o $and grenades $as $anded over t$em to -"2B -"2B in turn $anded over to -"28 and -"28 $as $anded over t$em to -"2). !o it cannot be said t$at t$ere is no evidence to indicate as to "it$ "$om t$e sei:ed pistol and t"o $and grenades "ere after sei:ure till t$ey "ere sent to 9Cperts and so t$e above said decisions are not applicable to t$e present case.

22.It is true t$at t$ere is oral evidence to t$e effect t$at -"1 $as $anded over t$e sei:ed material ob<ects to t$e -"22 and -"22 $as $anded over t$em to -"2B and -"2B to -"28 and -"28 to -"2). *ut t$e fact remains is t$at -"s 1 22 26 2B and 28 $ave not sealed ..4. 1 and and t"o $and grenades separately "it$ sealing "aC. >$erefore t$e contention of t$e learned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor is not acceptable.

In a case bet"een 8urava !urya -ra?as$ 'eddy A. !tate of And$ra -rades$ reported in 2002 %1, A=# %Crl., 3(1 %A-, on "$ic$ t$e learned counsel for t$e Accused No.1 relied on t$e +onourable +ig$ Court of And$ra -rades$ observed )t should be borne in mind that the intention of the 6egislature is to avoid replacement or the articles seized from the possession of the accused or plant certain other material ob*ects. The prosecution as frustrated the very intent of the section by delayed production of accused and 78,. Therefore, the prosecution version cannot be believed in view of the flagrant violation of "ection /1 of the !rms !ct. onse&uently, the criminal revision case is liable to be allowed.'

23 23.It is t$e contention of t$e learned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor t$at !ection 3B%b, of Arms Act ma?es it mandatory to produce t$e arms before t$e aut$ority t$en and t$ere only after t$e recovery "as done by a person ot$er t$an t$e police officer or .agistrate and in t$e present case t$e police officer made t$e recovery. >$erefore t$e said decision is not applicable to t$e present case. !ection 3B%b,%i, of Arms Act reads as follo"s: .b0 any person arrested and any arms and ammunition seized under this !ct by a person not being a 7agistrate or a +olice officer shall be delivered without delay to the officer in charge of the nearest +olice "tation and that officer shall 22 .i0either release that person on his executing a bond with or without sureties to appear before a 7agistrate and keep the things seized in his custody till the appearance of that person before the 7agistrate9 or 2(.4n a plain reading of !ection 3B%b,%i, of Arms Act s$o"s t$at t$e police officer also can ?eep t$e t$ings sei:ed in $is custody till t$e appearance of t$e said person before t$e .agistrate. In t$is case admittedly Accused No.1 "as produced before t$e .agistrate on 3.6.2010. Admittedly ..4s. 1 and 2 and t"o $and grenades "ere not produced before t$e .agistrate on t$at day i.e. on 3.6.2010. !o t$ere is clear violation of !ection 3B%b,%i, of Arms Act.

26.In a case bet"een Ibra$im .usa C$au$an alias *aba.... vs. !tate of .a$aras$tra %Criminal Appeal No.666 of 2012, on "$ic$ t$e learned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor relied on t$e +onourable !upreme Court observed The appellant:accused had been in possession of arms and ammunition in an unauthorized manner. 5ut held that the same does not in any way shown the complicity of the accused in the conspiracy relating to the blast that had been taken place on ,%./.,--/.' In t$e above said decision t$ere is no plea t$at t$e arms and ammunition t$at "ere sei:ed from t$e possession of t$e accused "ere not sealed at t$e time of sei:ure. !o t$e above said decision is not $elpful to t$e prosecution to

24 conclude t$at t$e failure of t$e police officer to proceed "it$ t$e arms and ammunition in pac?ing and sealing t$e said arms and ammunition is not fatal to t$e case of t$e prosecution.

27.In vie" of t$e above t$ree decisions on "$ic$ t$e learned Counsel for t$e Accused No.1 relied on "e $ave to eCtend t$e benefit of doubt in favour of Accused No.1 and "e $ave to conclude t$at t$e prosecution $as failed to prove t$e guilt of t$e Accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for t$e offence under !ection 26%b,%i, of Arms act.

2B.It is t$e contention of t$e prosecution t$at t$ere is no motive for t$e investigating agency to s$o" to foist false case against t$e Accused No.1.

In a case bet"een 2asbir !ing$ As !tate of -un<ab reported in AI'1))8 !.C.1770 %Criminal Appeal No.107B of 1))B, on "$ic$ t$e =earned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor relied on t$e +onourable !upreme Court observed (e do not find any substance in this contention because the sten gun had a number written on it and it was noted in the seizure memo and it tallied with the number found on the stengun produced in the ourt. ;$< powder after its seizure was kept in a sealed packet and it is proved that on examination it was reported as a highly explosive substance. ! contention regarding validity of registration of the offence and the investigation that followed was also raised on the ground that no permission of the "uperintendent of +olice was obtained before registering the offence. (e do not find any substance in this connection also.' In t$e above decision it "as observed by t$e +onourable +ig$ Court t$at t$ere "as evidence in t$e case to t$e effect t$at t$e '#K po"der after its sei:ure "as ?ept in a sealed pac?et and it is proved t$at on eCamination it "as reported as a $ig$ly eCplosive substance.

25 28.*ut in t$is case t$oug$ $and grenades alleged to $ave been sei:ed from t$e possession of Accused No.1 "ere not sealed yet t$e description particulars of t$e t"o $and grenades t$at "ere sei:ed from t$e possession of t$e Accused No.1 are noted in 9C.-( and -10 respectively. -"2 "$o destroyed t$e t"o $and grenades $as issued t$e opinion certificate under 9C.-1( also $as noted t$e numbers of t$e $and grenades "$ic$ are tallying "it$ t$e numbers of t$e $and grenades t$at are noted in 9C.-( and -10 respectively.

2).In t$e above said decision on "$ic$ t$e learned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor relied on t$e stengun t$at "as said to $ave been sei:ed from t$e possession of Accused No.1 "as not ?ept in sealed pac?et. *ut t$e '#K t$at "as sei:ed at t$e instance of t$e accused "as ?ept in a sealed pac?et. In t$e above said decision t$e number "ritten on t$e stengun "as noted in t$e sei:ure memo. >$erefore t$e +onourable !upreme court $as not eCtend benefit of doubt to t$e accused for not ?eeping t$e stengun sei:ed in a sealed pac?et.

30.In t$e present case as stated above t$e numbers of t$e t"o $and grenades are noted in 9Cs.-( and -10 respectively and t$ose numbers "ere also noted in t$e opinion certificate issued by -"3 in 9C.-1(. >$erefore "e cannot eCtend benefit of doubt to t$e accused for not ?eeping t$e t"o $and grenades in a sealed pac?et.

31.In anot$er case bet"een 8umar and anot$er v. !tate of And$ra -rades$ reported in 1)B2%1, And$ra ;ee?ly 'eporter page 16) on "$ic$ t$e learned counsel for t$e Accused No.1 relied on t$e +onourable +ig$ Court of And$ra -rades$ observed

26 The failure to break open the seals in the presence of those witnesses before whom the seals were put and whose signatures were obtained on the slips pasted to the tins .in which the bombs' recovered were placed0 is a serious infirmity and omission in the prosecution case throwing considerable doubt whether the substances which were found to be explosive substances' by the )nspector of 4xplosives were identical substances that were recovered from the respective houses of the accused.' 32.In t$is case admittedly t$e $and grenades t$at "ere said to $ave been sei:ed from t$e possession of t$e Accused No.1 "ere not sealed by -"1 "$o alleged to $ave been sei:ed from t$e possession of Accused No.1.

33.-"3 in $is evidence $as stated t$at $e $as destroyed t$e t"o $and grenades after ta?ing permission from t$e Court "$en it "as found t$at it "as not possible to diffuse t$em. In $is evidence -"3 $as not stated about any seals t$at "ere on t$e polyt$ene bag containing t$e t"o $and grenades t$at "ee given to $im. !o in t$is case -"3 $as received $and grenades in a polyt$ene bag $as no seals. >$erefore t$e above decision is not applicable to t$e present case.

3(.In a case bet"een *.8onda 'eddy A. !tate of And$ra -rades$ reported in 1))7 A.-.=.2.%Crl.,222 %+C, on "$ic$ t$e learned counsel for t$e Accused No.1 relied on t$e +onourable +ig$ Court of And$ra -rades$ observed

)t is therefore clear that it is not enough for the prosecution to establish that the ob*ects examined by the expert found to contain explosive substances, the prosecution should further establish that what were examined by him were the identical ob*ects that were seized from the accused. The said evidence is lacking in this case. The evidence does not even purport to establish such factum. This court has therefore, have not hesitation in holding that the prosecution has not establish that the identity of the substances recovered from the accused are the very same substances that have been examined by the inspector of 4xplosives. This is a very serious lacuna in the case.'

27 36.*ut in t$is case t$e numbers "ritten on t$e t"o $and grenades "ere noted in 9Cs.-( and -10 respectively and t$ey "ere also noted in t$e opinion certificate issued by -"2 "$o destroyed t$ose t"o $and grenades. >$erefore t$e above said t"o decisions on "$ic$ t$e learned counsel for t$e accused no.1 relied on are not $elpful to t$e case of t$e Accused No.1. !o "it$ t$e

evidence of -"1 coupled "it$ t$e evidence of -"3 and 9Cs.-( -10 and -1( and in vie" of t$e decision of t$e +onourable !upreme Court reported in AI' 1))8 !C 1770 on "$ic$ t$e leaned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor relied on "e $ave to conclude t$at t$e Accused No.1"as in possession of special category eCplosive substances on 3.6.2010 and t$e accused no.1 $as not s$o"n t$at $e $ad in possession of t$ose special category eCplosive substances for a la"ful ob<ect. +ence I am satisfied t$at t$e prosecution $as proved t$e guilt of t$e Accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for t$e offences punis$able under !ection 6 of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act.

37.>o prove t$at t$e Accused No.1 $as conspired "it$ t$e absconding Accused No.2 Abdul A:i: to "age "ar against t$e Dovernment of India and for t$at $e $as secured arms and ammunition to do an illegal act and to create terror t$e prosecution $as eCamined -"1 -"2 -"6 -"7 -"11 -"1( -" to 20. It is admitted fact t$at t$e prosecution $as not produced any direct evidence to s$o" t$at t$e Accused no.1 belongs to any particular terrorist organi:ation. It is t$e case of t$e prosecution t$at Accused No.1 used to sent e5mails to t$e absconding Accused No.2 5 Abdul A:i: and $e used to receive e5mails from t$e said absconding accused no.2 and t$ose e5mails "ere in code language and t$e said e5mails are pertaining to t$e terrorist acts committed by t$e Accused No.1 etc. -"6 ..Ab$i<it 'eddy "$o is said to $ave been running !ri Ais$nu Internet Cafe Dudimal?apur .a$dipatnam $as deposed t$at on

28 8.6.2010 -"2B ..-rab$a?ar 'eddy came along "it$ Accused No.1 and t$e Accused No.1 $as stated t$at $e used t$e Cabin Nos. 3 and ( in t$e Internet and t$en $e verified t$e log boo? of $is Internet and on verification $e found t$at t$e Accused No.1 $as used t$e Cabin Nos. 3 and ( on 6.(.2010 bet"een 1.60 pm and (.(0 pm and t$en on t$e re1uest of -"2B $e $as $anded over t$e $ard disc pertaining to t$e computers in t$e Cabin Nos. 3 and ( %..4s. 7 and B,. -"7 .o$d. .udassir 8$an "$o used to run Internet Cafe called Aman Communications at 'ein *a:aar +yderabad $as deposed t$at

Accused No.1 $as come to $is Internet Cafe on t"o occasions i.e. on 10.(.2010 and 1B.(.2010. 4n 8.6.2010 -"2B came along "it$ Accused No.1 and t$e Accused No.1 at t$at time $as stated t$at $e $as used t$e Cabin No.1 or Cabin No.3 in $is Internet Cafe. >$en on t$e re1uest of -"2B $e $as removed t$e $ard disc from t$e respective computers in Cabin Nos. 1 and 3 and $anded over t$em to -"2B and t$ey are ..4s. 8 and ) and $e also $aded over 9C.-18 t$e printouts of customers list particulars. >$e said customer particulars under 9C.-18 in t$e Internet Cafe of -"7 and t$e log boo? under 9C.-17 maintained by t$e Internet Cafe of -"6 does not contain t$e signatures of Accused No.1. !o basing on 9C.-17 and -1B "e cannot conclude t$at t$e Accused No.1 $as used t$e computers in t$e Internet Cafe of -"s 6 and 7.

3B. -"1B *.A.!.!iva -rasad !cientific 4fficer in And$ra -rades$ &orensic !cience =aboratory +yderabad $as deposed t$at $e $as analy:ed t$e $ard dis?s in ..4s. 7 to ) and $as prepared a report under 9C.-36 and $e $ad anneCed t$e printouts t$at $e $ad ta?en "$ic$ represent t$e data t$at "as retrieved from t$e items nos. 3 and ( along "it$ ( $ard discs ..4s. 7 to ). -"13 !atis$ C$and #eputy !uperintendent of -olice Information

29 >ec$nology #ivision of National Investigating Agency Ne" #el$i $as deposed t$at on (.).2010 at (.00 pm -"2) Ais$al Darg Additional !uperintendent of -olice came along "it$ t"o individuals #is$ant$ C$opra and .a$es$ re1uested $im to provide computer "it$ Internet facility and t$en t$at -"2) broug$t Accused No.1 and t$at Accused No.1 $as disclosed t$e I# address of t"o e5mails and t$eir pass "ords and t$at Accused No.1 sat before t$e computer and used Internet eCplorer and opened roolee000@ya$oo.co.in by using pass"ord GgoodgoodI and at t$e re1uest of -"2) $e too? t$e printouts of 22 mails from t$at account opened by Accused No.1 and t$at e5mail account indicate t$at e5mails "ere sent to sigamono@La$oo.com.in. 9C.-30 is t$e said printouts and t$en t$e Accused No.1 opened anot$er Account :oolee000@ya$oo.co.in by using t$e pass"ord GbadbadI and $e too? out printouts of t$e e5mails in t$at account under 9C.-31.

38.*asing on t$e log boo? under 9C.-17 "it$out t$e signature of t$e accused no.1 sei:ed at t$e Internet Cafe of -"6 and t$e account statement under 9C.-1B "it$out t$e signature of t$e accused no.1 sei:ed from t$e Internet Cafe of -"7 "e cannot conclude t$at t$e Accused No.1 $as used t$ose t"o Internet Cafes of -"s 6 and 7 respectively. ;it$ t$e evidence of -"1B and "it$ t$e contents of printouts under 9Cs.-36 and -37 "e cannot conclude t$at t$ose e5mails "ere sent by t$e accused no.1 only to t$e absconding accused No.2. =i?e"ise basing on t$e evidence of -"s 11 and 13 and "it$ t$e contents of 9Cs.-2) -30 and -31 "it$out t$e signature of t$e accused no.1in t$em "e cannot conclude t$at e5mails "ere sent to Accused No.2. -"1) 'a?es$ 8umar "$o is running 8ris$na !"eets at !an<ay Nagar #el$i $as stated t$at in t$e presence of "itnesses namely 8ris$na<i %-"7, and !ud$es$ %-"2(, police $ave sei:ed one 8D s"eet boC %empty, E ..4.11.

30 *asing on t$e evidence of -"1) "e cannot conclude t$at Accused no.1 $as received grenades sent by un?no"n courier by using said type of s"eet boC under ..4.11 since t$ere is no connecting lin? to presume t$e same.

3).In t$is case -"20 .o$d. !$abuddin o"ner of !$abuddin Duest +ouse $as stated in $is evidence on 3.).2010 at about 6.00 pm Accused No.1 "as broug$t by t$e police officer -"2) along "it$ t$ree more persons and also local police and t$e Accused No.1 s$o"n to t$e police t$e room no.106 situated in t$e second floor in t$e guest $ouse. >$en "$en t$e police as?ed $im %-"20, $e produced t$e guest $ouse register under 9C.-(2 and t$e police $ave verified t$e said register and t$ey $ave pointed out an entry in t$e said register "$ic$ is mar?ed as 9C.-(3 at page no.112 at serial no.B1. >$e said 9C.-(3 is relevant entry in 9C.-(2 t$e guest $ouse register. -"2(

!ud$es$ 8umar !$arma and -"27 8is$anlal in t$eir evidence $as stated t$at in t$eir presence Accused no.1 $as s$o"n t$e room no.106 of !$abuddin Duest +ouse and t$e police $ave sei:ed t$e guest $ouse register under 9C.-(2 and t$e relevant entry in 9C.-(2 is 9C.-(3 and t$ey %-"2( and -"27, signed in t$at guest $ouse register "$ic$ are mar?ed as 9Cs.-6( and -8) respectively. -"26 -.Aenugopal 'ao Central &orensic !cience =aboratory

$as deposed t$at $e $as compared t$e admitted signatures and $and "ritings of t$e accused under 9Cs.-B0 to -B( "it$ t$e disputed signature of Accused No.1 in t$at relevant entry under 9C.-(3 in 9C.-(2 guest $ouse register and $as opined under 9C.-88 t$e opinion/report dated 22.10.2012 t$at t$e "ritings and signatures mar?ed as J1 !1 !2 !1/1 to !7/1 and A1 to A6 "ere all "ritten by one and t$e same person. 9Cs.-B to -B( are t$e admitted signatures and $and "ritings of Accused No.1. !o "it$ t$e evidence of -"s 2( to 27 -"2) -"20 it is clear t$at Accused No.1 $as stayed in 'oom

31 No.106 from 2.12.2006 to (.12.2006 7.00 pm "it$ t$e fictitious name .o$d. +abeeb son of .o$d. !orif. >$ere is absolutely no evidence on record to s$o" t$at "$at purpose t$e Accused No.1 $as stayed in t$at guest $ouse "it$ fictitious name.

(0.!ection (16 of I-C defines Fc$eatingF. !ection (17 defines FpersonationF and !ection (1) is punis$ment for c$eating by personation. !ection (16 I-C reads as follo"s: heating=2 (hoever by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonesty induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which be would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat'. 4xplanation= ! dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. !ection (17 I-C reads as follo"s: heating by personation= ! person is said to cheat by personation= if he cheats by pretending to be some other person or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. 4xplanation= The offence is committed personated is a real or imaginary person. whether the individual

(1..ere personation is not an offence in Indian -enal Code. 4nly c$eating by person is punis$able under !ection (1) I-C. *y referring t$e case reported in I=' 1B Calcutta 707 %.o<ey Case, in t$e -enal =a" of India by #r. !.+ari !ing$ Dour 11t$ 9dition IA Aolume page (18( as noted t$at )n another case on the same facts the "essions >udge *ustified the conviction on the ground that the false personation of the executant by the accused had caused harm to the ;egistrar. 5ut the ourt held that the damage or harm' must be the necessary conse&uence of the act done by the reason of the deceit practiced, or must be necessary likely to follow thereform. The possibility of the ;egistrar suffering in reputation and losing fees in future from persons debarred from

32 registering their transactions is too remote to be in the contemplation of "ection ?,#.' (2.!ince in t$is case t$ere is absolutely no evidence placed by t$e prosecution to s$o" t$at t$e Accused No.1 by staying in t$e guest $ouse of -"20 "it$ fictitious name $as c$eated any body. *ut it may create some suspicion t$at for doing some misc$ief or c$eating only t$e Accused No.1 $as stayed in t$e said guest $ouse "it$ fictitious name. *ut suspicion $o"ever strong cannot ta?e t$e place of proof. !o I am constrained to come to t$e conclusion t$at t$e prosecution $as failed to prove t$e guilt of t$e accused beyond all reasonable doubt for t$e offence under !ection (1) I-C.

(3.It is t$e contention of t$e learned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor for t$e prosecution t$at minor discrepancies or omissions "ill not effect t$e case of t$e prosecution in any "ay. In a case bet"een #o"luri 8ris$na and 4t$ers A. !tate of And$ra -rades$ reported in 2013%2, A=# %Crl., )2) %A-, on "$ic$ t$e learned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor relied on t$e +onourable +ig$ Court of And$ra -rades$ observed 7inor discrepancies or omissions are bound to occur even in a case of truthful witness. Those minor contradictions or omissions are of trivial in nature. They will not effect the main fabric of the prosecution case.' ((.It is true in vie" of t$e above decision "e can conclude t$at minor discrepancies or omissions "ill not going to effect t$e fabric of t$e prosecution case. In t$is case prosecution $as not produced any direct evidence to s$o" t$at Accused No.1 $as lin?s "it$ any terrorist organi:ation or t$at t$e Accused N4.1 $as committed any terrorist act. In $is evidence -"13 $as stated t$at 9C.-30 and -31 printouts of e5mails said to $ave been obtained by t$is -"13 "$en t$e Accused No.1 $imself opened $is e5mail account by using I# addresses and pass "ords do not indicate t$at t$ose printouts "ere made at

33 #el$i. -"13 also deposed t$at 9C.-2) t$e disclosure sei:ure panc$anama dated (.).2010 at -! of NIA Ne" #el$i does not mention number of printouts made on t$at day. -"13 also deposed t$at "$ile loo?ing at 9Cs.-30 and -31 one cannot say t$e place or t$e country from it "as sent or t$e place and country in "$ic$ it is received. +e also stated voluntarily t$at t$e &orensic 9Cpert by analy:ing G&ull +eaderI by opening e5mail account could gat$er t$e information of t$e place of orgination and from "$ic$ computer it "as sent and t$e place of receipt of e5mail. +e admitted t$at service provider of Internet and La$oo toget$er alone can furnis$ information about t$e origination of e5 mail and t$e place "$ere it "as received. In t$is case t$ere is no evidence on record to s$o" t$at "$o is t$e service provider for t$e Ais$nu Internet Cafe run by -"6 from "$ic$ Accused No.1 alleged to $ave been sent e5mails. -"7 $as stated t$at *!N= "as t$e service provider to $is Internet Cafe called Aman Communications Internet Cafe at 'ein *a:aar +yderabad. >$e

investigating agency $as not ta?en any steps to ascertain t$e service provider of -"6 and also $as not ta?en any steps to get t$e service providers of -"6 and -"7 and La$oo Company toget$er furnis$ information about t$e origin of e5mails containing 9Cs.-30 and -31.

(6.In t$is case it is t$e contention of t$e learned counsel for t$e Accused No.1 t$at if t$e police "ould $ave been made t$e videograp$s of t$e Accused No.1 "$en $e "as opening $is alleged Internet Account by using pass "ords by $imself t$e matter "ould be different. In t$e absence of any suc$ evidence t$e oral evidence of -"13 is of no use. It is true t$at as t$e prosecution $as not able to produce t$e evidence to s$o" t$at t$e e5mails s$o"n in 9Cs.-30 and -31 "ere sent from "$ic$ place or country and in t$at place or t$e country in "$ic$ t$ey "ere received. >$erefore "e cannot conclude t$at t$e

34 Accused No.1 $as sent t$e e5mails found in 9Cs.-30 and -31 from +yderabad to t$e absconding accused No.2 in abroad.

(7.It is true t$at t$e said =e> %=as?$er5e5>aiba, is included in !erial N4.6 of t$e !c$edule attac$ed in 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B. In t$is case t$ere is absolutely t$ere is no evidence on record to s$o" t$at Accused No.1 is a member of a terrorist gang or organi:ation especially =e> %=as?$er5e5 >aiba,.

(B.It is t$e contention of t$e learned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor for t$e prosecution t$at t$e Accused No.1 $as not given any eCplanation for $is not possessing passport obtained by $im. It is true t$at t$e Accused N4.1 $as not produced t$e passport t$at "as obtained by $im in t$e year 1))6. In $is statement under section 313 Cr.-.C. t$e Accused No.1 $as stated t$at by ?eeping $im in illegal custody for four days t$e police $ave $im to $is $ouse and in $is $ouse t$ey $ave ta?en $is driving licence ban? c$e1ues travel licence pan card and passport from $is $ouse. Counter Intelligence 4fficer $ave come to $is $ouse on t$at day. It is an admitted fact t$at t$e police

$ave sei:ed driving licence ban? c$e1ues pan card four bills domestic gas connection card from t$e $ouse of Accused No.1 and "$en Accused No.1 produced t$e same.

(8.In $er evidence -"23 -assport Dranting 4fficer $as stated t$at Accused No.1 $as applied for passport in t$e year 2007 vide No.A/0B6733/07 and no passport "as issued on t$at application since t$ere "as adverse police report indicating t$at t$e said individual "as not living in t$at address. #uring cross eCamination t$is -"23 $as admitted t$at s$e did not $andle anyt$ing

35 concerning t$e above activities and s$e only deposed from "$at is available on record. !$e denied t$e suggestion t$at 9C.-63 application "as not made by Accused No.1 and it does not contain $is signature. 9C.-(3 is t$e p$oto copy of application form said to $ave been submitted by t$e Accused No.1 to t$e -assport Aut$orities. >$e original passport application said to $ave been submitted by Accused No.1 i.e. original of 9C.-63 not produced by -"23. >$e signature on 9C.-63 "as not sent to t$e +and ;riting 9Cpert for comparison of t$e same "it$ t$e admitted signatures and $and"ritings of Accused No.1. Admittedly -"23 is not t$e person t$at $as received t$e

application under t$e original of 9C.-63. !o basing on t$e evidence of -"23 and 9C.-63 "e cannot conclude t$at t$e Accused No.1 $as applied for passport for t$e second time "it$ false address and information. &urt$er basing on t$e failure of t$e Accused not producing t$e passport t$at "as issued to $im in t$e year 1))6 "$en $e $as stated t$at t$e said passport "as also sei:ed by t$e police "$en $e produced it at $is $ouse it cannot be concluded t$at t$e passport t$at "as issued to $im in t$e year 1))6 "as sei:ed by t$e terrorist organi:ation in abroad. It is an admitted fact t$at Accused No.1 "ent to abroad "it$ valid passport. It is also admitted fact t$at t$e Accused No.1 returned to India from abroad. It is t$e case of t$e

prosecution t$at $e returned to India by illegal means. In t$e absence of any evidence to t$at effect "e cannot conclude t$at t$e Accused No.1 "$o "ent to abroad "it$ valid passport $as returned to India by illegal means "it$out using $is valid passport. >$erefore as t$ere is absolutely no evidence on record to s$o" t$at t$e Accused No.1 is a member of terrorist gang or terrorist organi:ation as notified in t$e !c$edule to t$e 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B I am constrained to come to t$e conclusion t$at t$e prosecution $as failed to prove t$e guilt of t$e Accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt

36 for t$e offence under !ection 20 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B.

().It is t$e case of t$e prosecution t$at t$e Accused No.1 $as conspired "it$ t$e absconding Accused No.2 to do terrorist acts in India. In a case bet"een -.8.Narayanan A. !tate of 8erala reported in 1))( %3, Crimes page 860 on "$ic$ t$e learned counsel for t$e Accused No. relied on t$e +onourable !upreme Court of India observed The ingredients of this offence are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act for doing by illegal means an act which by itself may not be illegal. Therefore the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. 5ut, if those circumstances are compatible also with the innocence of the accused persons then it can be held that the prosecution has successfully established its case. 4ven if some ac ts are proved to have been committed it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. )nferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation.' 60.As per section of 2 %?, of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B defines t$e terrorist act as follo"s: .k0 terrorist act' has the meaning assigned to it in section ,#, and the expressions terrorism' and the terrorist' shall be construed accordingly. !ection 2%o, 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B defines unla"ful activity as follo"sM .o0 unlawful activity', in relation to an individual or association, means any action taken by such individual or association .whether by committing an act or by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise0,22 61.>$ere is absolutely no evidence on record to s$o" t$at Accused No.1 $as

37 committed any terrorist activities or unla"ful activities as defined under section 2%?, and 2%o, respectively of t$e 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B. In t$is case t$e identity of Accused No.2 itself is not establis$ed . >$ere is also no evidence on record to s$o" t$at Accused No.2 is a terrorist or $e did any terrorist activity at any time and t$ere is also no evidence on record to s$o" t$at Accused No.1 $erein $as conspired "it$ t$e absconding accused No.2 to do any terrorist act or unla"ful activity.

62.!ection 18 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B reads as follo"s: +unishment for conspiracy, etc.22(hoever conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises, or incites or knowingly facilitates the commission of a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. 63.!ince t$ere is absolutely no evidence on record t$at t$e Accused No.1 conspired "it$ any body particularly "it$ t$e absconding Accused No.2 and did or advocates abets advised or incites or ?no"ingly facilitates t$e commission of a terrorist act or any any preparatory to t$e commission of a terrorist act I am constrained to come to conclusion t$at t$e prosecution $as failed to prove t$e guilt of t$e accused no.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for t$e offence under !ection 18 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B and also !ection 1205* of I-C.

6(.In t$is case prosecution $as eCamined -"12 ..'ad$i?a. In $er evidence s$e stated t$at about siC years ago s$e "ent to a movie called G=a?s$miI in 4deon >$eater for second s$o" along "it$ four ot$ers and at 10.00 pm "$en t$e movie "as commenced and "$ic$ "as before interval of t$e said movie t$ere "as big sound li?e t$at of crac?ers sound and electric po"er "ent off.

38 >$e sound "as li?e a bomb sound. !$e sustained in<ury on $er left leg. !$e does not ?no" "$o "as responsible for t$e said blast. !$e "as ta?en to Dand$i +ospital and from t$ere to !riram +ospital and police recorded $er statement. >$is -"12 $as not stated anyt$ing against t$e Accused No.1. !o "it$ $er evidence "e cannot conclude t$at t$e Accused No.1 "as t$e person responsible for t$e blast in t$e 4deon >$eater.

66.In t$is case t$e prosecution $as establis$ed t$at t"o $and grenades "ere in possession of t$e Accused No.1 and t$ey "ere sei:ed from t$e possession of $im. -"2) Ais$al Darg one of t$e investigating officers in t$is case $as deposed t$at $e $as re1uested t$e ot$er !tate police to inform $im about any sei:ure of $and grenades by t$em during t$e last five years and to regarding provide information t$e ma?e of $and grenades manufacturing country and t$e name of terrorist group if t$ey ?no" be$ind t$e said $and grenades. 4n t$at $e received report under 9C.-103 from A>! %Anti >errorist !1uad, .umbai t$at t$ey $ave sei:ed 60 grenades $aving series No.87-5015035732 "ere recovered from .anmad in .ay 2007. +e received report under

9C.-102 from t$e !pecial Cell #el$i police regarding t$e t"o grenades recovered by t$em in &ebruary 200B $aving series No.87-5015035732. >$ose t"o reports "ere compared "it$ t$e reports in t$is case received from *omb #isposal !1uad +yderabad and all t$e t$ree reports matc$es "$ic$ s$o"s t$at -AN India terrorist activities. In $is evidence -"2) $as admitted t$at in 9Cs. -102 and -103 t$e name of t$e country or origin of t$e $and grenades are not noted. +e denied t$e suggestion during cross eCamination by t$e learned counsel for t$e Accused No.1 t$at t$e series numbers of t$e $and grenades said to $ave been sei:ed in t$is case "ere already available "it$ t$e polcie and t$erefore t$ey used t$em to implicated t$e Accused in t$is case.

39 It is true t$at in $is opinion under 9C.-1( -"3 #r. >...!uri Inspector of -olice *omb #isposal >eam Crime Investigation #epartment +yderabad $as given t$e numbers of t$e t"o $and grenades t$at "ere destroyed by $im. 4ne grenade is described as C$ina origin bearing no. 87-5015035372 and anot$er is of C$inaFs bearing no. 825265015035770. !o one of t$e grenades no.87-5015035732 noted in 9C.-1( is tallying "it$ t$e $and grenade numbers noted in 9C.-102 and -103. 4n perusal of 9C.-102 report received from !pecial Cell #el$i dated 6.10.2010 "e found t$at no $and grenade bearing no. 87-5015035732 "as referred in it. ;$en "e peruse t$e report under

9C.-103 received from A>! .umbai t$ere is mention t$at $and grenade no. 87-5015035732. !o t$e evidence of -2) is not corroborated "it$ 9C.-102 but it is corroborating "it$ 9C.-103.

67.It is t$e contention of t$e =earned !pecial -ublic -rosecutor for t$e prosecution t$at as t$e prosecution $as able to prove t$at t$e Accused No.1 "as in possession of t$ose t"o $and grenades "e can infer t$at t$e

Accused No.1 "as in possession of t$ose t"o $and grenades for t$e purpose of "aging "ar against t$e Dovernment of India and t$at $e is a member of terrorist organi:ation and t$at $e conspired "it$ t$e a member of terrorist organi:ation to committal unla"ful activities. In a case bet"een !uc$a !ing$ As. !tate of -un<ab %Appeal %crl., 2( of 2001, on t$e file of +onourable !upreme Court of India ,%obtained from India 8anoon E

$ttp:/india?anoon.org/doc/18326(1/.

6B.!ince in t$is case t$e prosecution $as not proved t$at t$ere "as an agreement bet"een t$e Accused No.1 "it$ t$e absconding Accused No.2 to do some illegal acts "e cannot t$ro" burden on t$e Accused No.1 to prove

40 $is innocence by invo?ing t$e !ection 107 of Indian 9vidence Act.

68.>$e prosecution $as not eCamined t$e officers concerned "it$ 9C.-102 and 9C.-103. !ince t$e evidence of -"2) is not corroborated "it$ 9C.-102 "e cannot give muc$ "eig$t to t$ese 9Cs.-102 and -103 in t$e absence of t$e evidence of t$e officers "$o issued t$ose 9Cs.-102 and -103. It is true t$at t$e prosecution $as proved in t$is case t$at t$e Accused No.1 "as in possession of t"o $and grenades but "$en t$e Accused No.1 is found in possession of t"o $and grenades "e automatically cannot conclude t$at $e "as ?eeping t$ose $and grenades for t$e purpose of "aging "ar against t$e Dovernment of India or !tate Dovernment. ;it$ t$is evidence of -"2) "$o is one of t$e investigating officers in t$is case "e cannot conclude t$at t$e Accused No.1 "$o "as found in possession of t"o $and grenades "as ?eeping t$em for t$e purpose of terrorist activities to "age "ar against t$e Dovernment of India. In vie" of my above discussion I am constrained to come t$e conclusion t$at t$e prosecution $as failed to prove t$e guilty of t$e Accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for t$e offence under !ection 122 of Indian -enal Code.

6).In vie" of my above findings t$e points Nos.1 3 ( 6 7 and B are $ereby ans"ered against t$e prosecution. In vie" of my findings "it$ respect of t$e point no.2 is concerned I $old t$at t$e prosecution $as proved t$e guilt of t$e Accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt for t$e offence under !ection 6 of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act 1)08 only.

70.>$e second c$arge t$at "as framed against t$e Accused No.1 is under !ection 6 of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act read "it$ !ection 23 of 0nla"ful

41 Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B. !ince I $old t$at t$e prosecution $as failed to prove t$e offences under !ections 18 and 20 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B "e cannot invo?e t$e !ection 23 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B to impose en$anced punis$ment or penalty to t$e Accused No.1 for t$e offence under !ection 6 of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act 1)08. +ence point no.2 is $ereby allo"ed party to t$e eCtent of !ection 6 of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act 1)08 only in favour of t$e prosecution.

71.In vie" of my findings on -oints Nos.1 and 3 to B t$e Accused No.1 is found not guilty for t$e offences punis$able under !ection 26%1*,%a, of Arms Act read "it$ section 23 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B !ections 20 and 18 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B !ections 122 and 1205* and (1) of I-C. Accordingly t$e Accused No.1 is ac1uitted under !ection 236 %1, of Cr.-.C. for t$e offences under !ection 26%1*,%a, of Arms Act read "it$ section 23 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B !ections 20 and 18 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B !ections 122 and 1205* and (1) of I-C. In vie" of my finding on -oint No.%2, t$e Accused No.1 is found guilty of t$e offence punis$able under !ection 6%b, of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act 1)08.

72.+ence t$e Accused No.1 is found guilty of t$e offence punis$able under !ection 6 %b, of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act 1)08 and $e is convicted under !ection 236%2, of Cr.-.C. #ictated to t$e -ersonal Assistant transcribed by $im corrected and pronounced by me in t$e open court t$is t$e 2)t$ da% &' Ja$(a)%, 20*+.

I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, CUM SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT, HYDERABAD.

42 73.>$e Accused No.1 is $eard "it$ regard to t$e 1uestion of sentence. >$e accused No.1 pleaded mercy of t$e Court stating t$at $e is in <udicial custody since about four years. +e is $aving t$ree c$ildren and "ife and aged parents and $e is t$e sole bread "inner of $is family and re1uested t$e court to order for set off of t$e period of detention already under gone by $im as t$e sentence in t$is case.

7(.Considering t$e plea of t$e Accused No.1 and ot$er circumstances of t$is case including t$e nature of t$e offence proved against t$e Accused No.1 I am of t$e vie" t$at it is not a fit case "$ere "e can invo?e t$e provisions of t$e -robation of 4ffenders Act.

76.In t$e result t$e Accused No.1 is convicted under !ection 236%2, of Cr.-.C. and sentenced to under go 'igorous Imprisonment for seven years and also to pay fine of 's.1 000/5 %'upees 4ne >$ousands 4nly, in default of payment of fine to under go simple imprisonment for siC mont$s for t$e offence under !ection 6%b, of 9Cplosive !ubstances Act 1)08. Accused No.1 is ac1uitted under !ection 236%1, of Cr.-C. for t$e offences under !ections 26%1*,%a, of Arms Act read "it$ !ection 23 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B !ections 20 and 18 of 0nla"ful Activities %-revention, Act 1)7B and !ections 122 1205* and (1) of I-C. >$e period of detention already under gone by t$e Accused No.1 during t$e course of investigation and trial of t$is case s$all be set off against t$e sentence of imprisonment imposed by t$is Court in t$is case under !ection (28 of Cr.-.C. ..4s. 2 to 12 s$all be destroyed and ..4.1 "$ic$ is a fire arm s$all be sent to t$e Armory for disposal in accordance "it$ =a" after disposal of t$e split up case in !pecial !.C.No.1/2013 "$ic$ is pending against t$e Accused No.2. >$e Accused No.1

43 is informed t$at if $e is not $aving means to prefer an appeal against t$e <udgement of t$is court $e can avail free legal aid from A.-. !tate =egal !ervices Aut$ority t$roug$ t$e !uperintendent Central -rison concerned.

#ictated to t$e -ersonal Assistant transcribed by $im corrected and pronounced by me in t$e open court t$is t$e 2)t$ da% &' Ja$(a)%, 20*+. I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, CUM SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT, HYDERABAD.

,APPPENDI; OF EVIDDENCE, <ITNESS E;AMINED FOR PROSECUTION,= -;51:5 -..ad$u?ar !"amy %Inspector of police !I> +yderabad, -;52:5 ..8aruna?ar %>a$sildar of Ameerpet mandal, -;53:5 >...!uri. %Inspector *omb !1uad +yderabad, -;5(:5 Abdul Javi -;56:5 ..Abi<it 'eddy %;$o ran !ri Ais$nu Internet Cafe at Dudimal?apur .e$idipatnam, -;57:5 .o$d .udassir 8$an %;$o ran Aman Communications Internet Cafe at 'ein *a:ar +yderabad, -;5B:5 8.!reenivas 'ao %+ead operator in A*N Amro *an?, -;58:5 .o$d !adi1 Ali %4"ner of t$e s$op selling mobile rec$arge coupons, -;5):5 #r.A.Aen?ates$"arlu %!cientific officer in A-&!=, -;510:5 .o$d Airf %;$o leases cars and ve$icles, -;511:5 .a$es$ %;$o "or?ed in a competent soft"are -vt. =td. , -;512:5 ..'ad$i?a -;513:5 !atis$ C$and %#y.!uperintendent of police, -;51(:5 As$o? 8umar *a"alia %0nder !ecretary .inistry of +ome Affairs, -;516:5 #.An<aneyulu -;517:5 .o$d .oinuddin +assan 8$an %Asst. #irector &orensic !cience =aboratory, -;51B:5 *.A.!.!iva -rasad %!cientific 4fficer in A-&!=, -;518:5 8.!atya -rasad %C$ief .anager of And$ra *an? .e$dipatnam branc$ +yd, -;51):5 'a?es$ 8umar -;520:5 .o$d !$abuddin %4"ner of a !$a$abuddin Duest $ouse, -;521:5 8is$ore .o$an C$atlani %.anager of ICICI *an? C$arminar *ranc$ +yderabad, -;522:5 -.!ubbaia$ %Inspector of police in *$avani Nagar =a" and 4rder police station, -;523:5 8.Aana<a Aen?atarama

44 -;52(:5 !ud$es$ 8umar !$arma %=IC 'ecord cler?, -;526:5 -.Aenugopala 'ao %!cientist5* in C&!= 'amant$apur +yderabad, -;527:5 8is$an =al -;52B:5 ..-rab$a?ar 'eddy %AC- !pecial Investigation >eam +yderabad, -;528:58.*abu 'ao %Assistant Commissioner of police CC! #etective #epartment, -;52):5 Ais$al Darg %Additional !uperintendent of police NIA Ne" #el$i,. -;530:5 Dul:ar Natra<an %#istrict Collector5cum5#istrict .agistrate +yderabad, <ITNESS E;AMINED FOR DEFENCE:5 5 Nil 5

E;HIBITS MAR>ED FOR PROSECUTION:5 9C.-51:5 #riving =icense of t$e accused. 9C.-52:5 -AN Card 9C.-53:5 'egistration Certificate of t"o "$eeler ve$icle of t$e accused. 9C.-5(:5 Admissible portion of Confession Cum sei:ure panc$anama dated:3565 2010. 9C.-56:5 C$e1ue boo? of ICICI *an? for A/c.No.02(20160BB)7. 9C.-57:5 C$e1ue boo? of A*N Amro ban? for A/c.No.1(3)17). 9C.-5B:5 -ass boo? of And$ra *an? "it$ A/c.No.086(01100022B)B 9C.-58:5 9lectricity *ill. 9C.-5):5 #omestic Das Connection card. 9C.-510:5 !ei:ure report ma?e at t$e $ouse of t$e accused. 9C.-511:5 Complaint given by -;51. 9C.-512:5 'e1uisition dated:205652010 to t$e +onFble Court see?ing permission to destroy t$e grenades. 9C.-513:5 Dranted permission letter on 215652010. 9C.-51(:5 4pinion given by -;53. 9C.-516:5 Copy of >rade =icense issued by D.+...C. 9C.-517:5 is t$e =og *oo?. 9C.-51B:5 +and "riting of -;56 9C.-518:5 -rintout of customers list in t$e s$op of -;57. 9C.-51):5 9ntry dated:105(52010 in 9C.-518. 9C.-520:5 9ntry dated:2B5(52010 in 9C.-518. 9C.-521:5 !tate of Account of !ri .o$d./ia50l5+a1 9C.-522:5 C$e1ue bearing no.()2B17 dated:)5(52008 dra"n by t$e customer of 9C.-521. 9C.-523:5 *unc$ of cas$ deposit slip or c$e1ue deposit slips 13 in number. 9C.-52(:5 =etter addressed by -;5B to !ri Ais$al Darg. 9C.-526:5 Account opening form of customer of 9C.-521. 9C.-527:5 !tatement of account of t$e customer maintained by ban?. 9C.-52B:5 !ignature of -;5 8 on panc$anama. 9C.-528:5 'eport given by -;5) dated:225752010. 9C.-52):5 -art of t$e panc$anama mar?ed. 9C.-530:5 -rintouts of e5mails. 9C.-531:5 -rintouts of e5mails. 9C.-532:5 !anction orders dated:2B/2851052010. 9C.-533:5 Admissible portion of sei:ure panc$anama. 9C.-53(:5 &!= report given by -;517. 9C.-536:5 &!= report given by -;51B. 9C.-537:5 -rintout containing ) s$eets bearing -;51BFs section seal. 9C.-53B:5 -rintout of account of accused /ia50l5+a1. 9C.-538:5 -$oto copy of Aoter I# card Das Aouc$er of accused /ia50l5+a1.

45 9C.-53):5 Credit vouc$er containing 71 in number of accused /ia50l5+a1. 9C.-5(0:5 4riginal "it$dra"al slips and c$e1ues totaling 27. 9C.-5(1:5 !ignature of -;51) on !ei:ure report dated:35)52010. 9C.-5(2:5 !$abuddin Duest +ouse 'egister. 9C.-5(3:5 !tamped entry at page 112 in 9C.-5(2 register. 9C.-5((:5 Account opening form. 9C.-5(6:5 >ransactions in t$at account by cas$ deposit slips and c$e1ues. 9C.-5(7:5 !tatement of account "$ic$ is given by -"521. 9C.-5(B:5 &I' in Cr.No.()/2010 9C.-5(8:5 =etter #t.125652010 issued by -.2..ane to t$e #y. Commissioner. 9C.-5():5 Attested copy of -assport Application dt.115151))6. 9C.-560:5 Attested copy of 'ation card. 9C.-561:5 Attested copy of t$e affidavit of .o$d /ia50l5+a1 declaring $is date of birt$. 9C.-562:5 Attested copy of data available on passport information service on net. 9C.-563:5 Attested copy of passport application of .o$d /ia50l5+a1. 9C.-56(:5 !ignature on -;52( on 9C.-5(2. 9C.-566 to -578:5 !ignatures of -;52( on Confession report !ei:ure reports !cene of offence description. 9C.-57):5 #isputed signature mar?ed as J.1 in 9C.-5(2 at page no.112. 9C.-5B0:5 specimen "riting of t$e person concerned mar?ed as !.1. 9C.-5B1:5 !pecimen "riting "$ic$ is mar?ed as !.2. 9C.-5B2:5 !pecimen "riting "$ic$ is mar?ed as !.3. 9C.-5B3:5 !pecimen "riting "$ic$ is mar?ed as !.(. 9C.-5B(:5 !pecimen "riting "$ic$ is mar?ed as !.6. 9C.-5B6:5 Admitting "riting mar?ed as A1 and A2. 9C.-5B7:5 Admitting "riting mar?ed as A3. 9C.-5BB:5 Admitting "riting mar?ed as A(. 9C.-5B8:5 Admitting "riting mar?ed as A6. 9C.-5B):5 4pinion of -;526 bearing no.C+521(/2010 #t.135152011. 9C.-580:5 =etter of =aboratory dt.2B51252011. 9C.-581 to -587:5 !pecimen "ritings mar?ed as !.1/1 to !.7/1. 9C.-58B:5 &or"arding letter dated:B51152012. 9C.-588:5 4pinion of -;526. 9C.-58):5 !ignature of -;527 at relevant entry in 9C.-5(2. 9C.-5)0:5 !ei:ure report dated:35)52010 at (530 pm at !$abuddin Duest +ouse. 9C.-5)1:5 !ei:ure report dated:35)52010 at B500 pm at 8ris$na !"eet Corner. 9C.-5)2:5Admissible portion in t$e confession of t$e accused dated:35)52010 at 1520 pm. 9C.-5)3:5 Admissible portion in t$e panc$anama dated:85652010 at 1(.00 $rs. 9C.-5)(:5 =etter dated:85652010 calling for details regarding t$e cell number )8(811860). 9C.-5)6:5 =etter dated:85652010 calling for details regarding t$e cell number 80)706)780. 9C.-5)7:5 'eply received from Idea Cellular Communications "it$ regard to t$e details of t$e cell number )8(811860). 9C.-5)B:5 'eply received from Idea Cellular communications "it$ regard to t$e details of t$e cell number 80)706)780. 9C.-5)8:5 Call details of cell number )8()11860). 9C.-5)):5 Covering letter from !econd Nodal 4fficer 'eliance Communication dated:125652010. 9C.-5100:5 4riginal &I' in Cr.No.8/2010 of NIA police station Ne" #el$i. 9C.-5101:5 !pecimen signatures of t$e accused obtained in t"o s$eets by -;5 2) at t$e guest $ouse.

46 9C.-5102:5 'eport received from !pecial Cell #el$i #ated:651052010. 9C.-5103:5 'eport received from Anti >errorism !1uad .umbai #ated:25105 2010. 9C.-510(:5 !anction orders dated:2(5)52010 issued by -;530. E;HIBITS MAR>ED FOR DEFENCE:5 MATERIAL OBJECTS MAR>ED:5 .451:5 -istol .452:5 !et of siC cartridges. .453:5 Card *oard *oC .45(:5 !mall bottle into "$ic$ -;53 $ad c$emicals. .456:5 'emnant t$at "as collected by -;53 into .453 boC. .457:5 +ard dis? from cabin no.3 of -;56 Internet Cafe. .45B:5 +ard dis? from cabin no.( of -;56 Internet Cafe. .458:5 +ard dis? of !eagates. .45):5 +ard dis? of !eagates. .4510:5 4pened 2ute -arcel. .4511:5 !pl.D$e"ar card board boC containing -;51) signature. .4512:5 .obile -$one of =D ma?e of 'eliance. 5 Nil 5

I ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, CUM SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT, HYDERABAD.