LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Friday, January 4, 2013

NO BAIL = the explosive substances under reference, were brought in a ship in a clandestine manner. = there is prima facie material, to establish the involvement of the petitioners in activities violating the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The consequences of such violation are extremely serious. The minimum punishment on conviction, is 10 years rigorous imprisonment. For more serious activities, the punishment can extend to imprisonment for life, and with death penalty. In the pleadings, and during the course of hearing, we were informed, that some of the accused are still absconding. Obviously all the accused are financially well placed. Releasing them from jail at the present juncture, when the prosecution has not even commenced to examine the main witnesses, could prove detrimental to the eventual outcome of the trial. Atleast till the culmination of the evidence of the material witnesses, it is not proper to order the release of the petitioners on bail.


                                                                “REPORTABLE”


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO.7532 OF 2012


N. Kannapan                                        …. Petitioner

                                   Versus

State (Union Territory) Andaman & Nicobar Islands  …. Respondent


                                    WITH

                SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.8286 of 2012

R. Chidambaram                                     …. Petitioner

                                   Versus

State (Union Territory) Andaman & Nicobar Islands  …. Respondent


                                    WITH

                SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.8730 of 2012

Sanjay Choudhury                                   …. Petitioner

                                   Versus

State (Union Territory) Andaman & Nicobar Islands  …. Respondent


                                    WITH

                SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.8876 of 2012

S. Namochivayam (In Jail)                          …. Petitioner

                                   Versus

State (Union Territory) Andaman & Nicobar Islands  …. Respondent

                               J U D G M E N T


JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.
1.    On a complaint made by  H.L.  Tiwari  FIR  No.546  was  registered  at
Police Station CCS, Port Blair on 21.6.2011.  The FIR and the  action  taken
thereupon indicate, that a cargo ship (christianed, Gati Zipp) had set  sail
from Chennai and was to reach Port Blair  on  20.6.2011.   It  was  alleged,
that the aforesaid cargo ship was carrying cartons shipped by  VMR  Shipping
Agency.  
It was also alleged,  that  the  cartons  of  VMR  Shipping  Agency
contained unauthorized substances.  
At  the  time  of  the  receipt  of  the
information, the cargo ship was  allegedly  berthed  at  Haddo  Jetty,  Port
Blair.  Based on the said information  recorded  in  the  First  Information
Report, a raiding party comprising of one Inspector, one Sub-Inspector,  two
Head Constables, two Constables, one police driver  (of  the  rank  of  Head
Constable) and one official photographer was organized.  On  reaching  Haddo
Jetty the raiding party associated with itself,  one  Sub  Inspector,  three
Head Constables and one Constable of the SB-CID staff stationed there.   Two
independent persons Nikhi Sakar, a Tally  Clerk  at  Port  Blair  and  Manoj
Kumar were also associated with the raiding party.
2.    The raiding party, having reached Haddo  Jetty,  started  looking  for
the cartons/containers shipped by VMR Shipping Agency, which had arrived  at
Port  Blair  in  Gati  Zipp.
The  raiding  party  identified  a  container
belonging  to  VMR  Shipping  Agency,  which  had  been  unloaded  from  the
concerned cargo ship (Gati Zipp).   The container in question,  was  further
being loaded into a truck bearing registration no.AN-01E-1847.   G..S.  Babu
was supervising the loading operations of the aforesaid container.
As  per
the declaration in the manifest list,  the  carton  in  question,  contained
four  drums  of  grease.   The  four  drums  found  in  the  container  were
photographed by  the  official  photographer.   The  said  drums  were  then
checked in the presence of independent witnesses.  
The alleged  contents  of
the four drums (revealed  upon  search  by  the  raiding  party)  are  being
summarized hereunder:
      i)    First drum: Three packets of  grease,  406  pieces  of  gelatine
           sticks  and 122 bundles of electronic  detonators  (each  bundle
           containing 25 detonators, i.e., in all 3000 detonators).


      ii)   Second drum: 405 gelatine sticks and 120 bundles  of  electronic
           detonators (in all 3000 detonators)


      iii)  Third drum: 823 gelatine sticks


      iv)   Fourth drum: 823 gelatine sticks.


The drums as well as the explosive  substances  recovered  from  the  drums, were counted and seized, in the presence of independent  witnesses.   
Before
that, five gelatine sticks were taken from the first drum and secured  in  a
separate  packet  for  chemical   analysis.    Likewise,   five   electronic
detonators were taken from the first drum and secured in a  separate  packet
for chemical examination.  The person who was supervising the  reloading  of
the container into the truck bearing registration no. AN-01E-1847  allegedly
identified himself as G.S. Babu.  He also disclosed, that  he  was  employed
as Manager by VMR Shipping Agency.
3.    With the assistance of G.S. Babu, and in the presence of the  official
photographer and the independent  witnesses,  the  raiding  party  allegedly
identified
another container belonging to  VMR  Shipping  Agency.  The  said
carton/container had also been  off-loaded  from  Gati  Zipp.  
 As  per  its
declaration in the manifest list, the second carton,  contained  salt.   The
aforesaid  container  was  also  opened  in  the  presence  of   independent
witnesses.  
It was found, that the contents of the  instant  container  were
enclosed in a large plastic bag.  
The large plastic bag  in  turn  contained
smaller plastic bags. The small plastic bags had the  inscription  “imported
coated drilled ammonium nitrate” and “net weight 50  kilograms”  printed  on
them.  
200 such small bags were allegedly found  in  the  second  container.
The official photographer also clicked photographs of the  contents  of  the
second container.  
The aforesaid  bags  contained  in  all,  10,000  kgs  of
ammonium  nitrate.   
The  aforesaid  ammonium   nitrate   was   taken   into
possession.  Two samples of the contents of  the  small  bags,  weighing  50
grams each, were taken for chemical analysis.
4.    Based on the recovery of the aforesaid explosive  substances,  further
investigations were carried out.  These  investigations  allegedly  revealed
inter alia, the names of the  petitioners  before  this  Court.   Consequent
upon the discovery of the petitioners involvement with  the  consignment  of
unauthorized explosive substances, they were arrested.   Applications  filed
by the petitioners for bail remained unsuccessful.  The impugned  orders  in
these petitions is the last such unsuccessful attempt,  made  on  behalf  of
the petitioners.  It is therefore, that the petitioners are now  before  us,
praying for bail.
5.    In order to support their claim  for  release  on  bail,  it  was  the
vehement contention of the learned counsel for S. Namochivayama  (petitioner
in SLP (Crl.) no.8876 of 2012), that
the petitioner  runs  a  grocery  shop,
and cannot  be  associated  with  the  allegations  narrated  in  the  First
Information Report, as also, the alleged recovery of  explosive  substances.

6.    In so  far  as  N.  Kannapan,  R.  Chidambaram  and  Sanjay  Choudhary
[petitioners in SLP (Crl.) no. 7532 of 2012, SLP(Crl.)  no.  8286  of  2012,
and SLP (Crl.) no. 8730 of 2012, respectively] are concerned, 
the  principal
submission is, that they are all genuine quarry operators, possessing  valid
licences for carrying out quarrying operations.  
They are officially  issued
explosives by the Andaman  Public  Works  Department,  which  they  use  for
extraction of boulders from their respective quarries, over which they  have
valid licences. 
Their contention in nutshell is,  that  the  action  of  the
petitioners in possessing  and  using  explosive  substances  is  legal  and
legitimate.  
As such, the aforesaid three  petitioners  contend,  that  they
are  not  involved  in  any  unauthorized  activity.   All  the  petitioners
therefore pray for their release on bail.
7.    In support of their prayer for bail, it  was  pointed  out,  that
the
First Information Report in this case was  registered  as  far  back  as  on
21.6.2011,
 the first  chargesheet  in  the  case  was  filed  on  24.8.2011.
Thereafter,  three  supplementary  chargesheets  were  filed  on  30.1.2012,
10.4.2012 and 7.7.2012.
It  was  the  pointed  submission  of  all  learned
counsel, that
based on the successive filing of  the  supplementary  charge-
sheets,  their  detention  in  jail  was  being  unduly  and   intentionally
prolonged, for extraneous considerations.
It was also pointed  out  by  the
learned counsel for the petitioners, that
all the petitioners  have  already
been in jail for periods exceeding one year and, as  such,  they  should  be
extended the concession of bail.
8.     It  was  also  the  contention  of  the  learned  counsel   for   the
petitioners, that the confiscated explosive  materials,  even  according  to
the contents of the First Information Report,  and  the  three  chargesheets
referred to above, were admittedly being used for quarrying operations.
 It
was submitted, that there is no allegation against any of the accused,  that
the contraband detained in Port Blair was for use in any terrorist  or  like
activity/activities.
It was submitted, that
keeping in mind  the  tenor  of
the insinuations contained in the First Information  Report,  as  also,  the
allegations contained in the chargesheets, the  petitioners  should  not  be
dealt with as if they are terrorists or are associated with terrorists.
9.    Additionally, it was the contention on behalf of all the  petitioners,
that
 no explosive materials were recovered from the premises of any  of  the
petitioners, and accordingly, none of the petitioners  could  be  associated
with the recovery of explosives allegedly made from  the  shipping  yard  at
Port Blair.  
It was submitted, that
the  petitioners  have  been  detained,
only on the basis of telephone conversations, and deposit of  cash  in  bank
accounts, which have no nexus with the  recoveries  of  explosives  made  at
Port Blair.
10.   We shall endeavour to  deal  with  the  pointed  allegations  levelled
against each of  the  petitioners  hereinafter.   We  shall  deal  with  the
petitioners, in the same sequence, in which  submissions  on  their  behalf,
were addressed at the Bar.
11.    First  and  foremost,  the  allegations  against   S.   Namochivayama
(petitioner in SLP (Crl.) no.8876 of 2012).  According  to  learned  counsel
representing the respondent state,
G.S.  Babu  who  was  arrested  when  the
contraband was recovered at Haddo Jetty, Port Blair,  as  also,  the  driver
Pankriacius  Ekka  (of  the  vehicle  bearing  registration  No.AN-01E-1847)
revealed, that the bags  (200  bags)  of  ammonium  nitrate  seized  by  the
raiding party on  21.6.2011, were booked in the name of M/s.Karpaga  Vinagar
Stores,  whose  proprietor  is  the  petitioner   S.   Namochivayama.    The
investigations conducted by the police also revealed, that  consignments  of
ammonium nitrate used to be distributed by S. Namochivayama,  to  the  other
co-accused, who are involved in  quarrying  operations.
Even  the  driver,
named above, had expressly indicated, that it was at the directions  of  the
petitioner S. Namochivayama, that he had gone to Haddo  Jetty,  Port  Blair,
for collecting the consignment under reference.
According to  the  evidence
allegedly collected by the investigating  agency,  Muthuraja  and  Sadasivam
are the proprietors of VMR  Shipping  Agency.
They  were  responsible  for
shipping the containers from Chennai to  Port  Blair.   Both  the  aforesaid
Muthuraja and Sadasivam are related to the petitioner S. Namochivayama.
 It
is also the case of the prosecution, that another accused Raghavan,  also  a
consignee of the gelatine sticks and detonators, was related  to  petitioner
S. Namochivayama.
It is also  asserted  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the
respondents,  that  the  evidence  collected  by  the  investigating  agency
clearly demonstrates the involvement of  the  petitioner  S.  Namochivayama,
inasmuch as,  the  instant  consignment  was  not  a  stray  incident.
The
petitioner S. Namochivayama is believed  to  have  been  indulging  in  such
activities in  the  ordinary  course  of  his  business.
 In  view  of  the
petitioner S. Namochivayama  being  the  distributor  of  ammonium  nitrate,
gelatine sticks and electronic detonators at Port Blair,  he  was  perceived
as the kingpin of the alleged activity, at Port  Blair.
And  therefore,  a
prime accused in the alleged conspiracy.
 Finally, it was the contention  of
the learned counsel for the respondents, that procurement of  explosives  of
the nature in  question  (which  were  recovered  by  the  police  party  on
21.6.2011), and their unauthorized sale and use,  is  a  matter  of  serious
concern,  not  only  for  environmental  purpose,  but  also  for   national
security.
It was pointed out, that explosives of the  nature  recovered  at
Port Blair on 21.6.2011, can easily be used for  other  allied  unauthorized
purposes, with disastrous consequences.
12.   The name of N. Kannapan (petitioner in SLP (Crl.)  no.7532  of  2012),
allegedly came to light, from the  statement  of  witnesses  recorded  under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  
According to  the  statement
of Magesh, the petitioner N. Kannapan had paid a  sum  of  Rs.3,20,000/-  to
him.
The aforesaid amount was deposited by the aforestated  Magesh  in  the
account of Selvam.
The bank account of Selvam affirmed the truthfulness  of
the aforesaid assertion.
Call details reveal, regular conversation  between
the  petitioner  N.   Kannapan   and   Selvam,   which   establishes   their
relationship.
N. Kannapan was also found to be associated  in  the  matter,
as Shanmugam in his statement under Section 164  of  the  Code  of  Criminal
Procedure affirmed, that the  petitioner  N.  Kanappan  was  using  ammonium
nitrate for quarrying operations.
 In this behalf it was pointed  out,  that
the Andaman Public Works Department had not issued any ammonium  nitrate  to
N. Kannapan, but the investigation revealed, that he was using the same  for
quarrying purposes, at his own quarry.
It  was  also  submitted,  that  the
findings of the forensic science laboratory indicate, that the seized  goods
were “special category explosive substances”, and as  such,  the  petitioner
N. Kannapan  had  actually  used  such  explosive  substances,  without  due
authorization in quarrying operations, and was liable  for  infringement  of
the provisions under the  Explosive  Substances  Act,  1908.
It  was  also
contended, that the explosive substances under reference, were brought in  a
ship in a clandestine manner.  
 In this behalf it was pointed out,  that
 in
the declaration manifest of one of the cartons, the gelatine sticks and  the
electronic detonators were described as grease.  The  other  container  with
ammonium nitrate,  was  described  as  salt  (in  the  declaration  manifest
relating thereto).  
 It  was  submitted,  that  if  the  intentions  of  the
petitioner N. Kannapan, were bonafide and genuine, there was no  reason  for
clandestine transportation of the ceased explosives  from  Chennai  to  Port
Blair.
The explosives in question, according to  the  learned  counsel  for
the respondents,
could be used for extraneous considerations,  and  had  the
potential of a massive disaster, not only to life but also to  property,  on
the Andaman or neighbouring islands.  
It was  also  pointed  out,  that  the
petitioner N. Kannapan had a regular relationship with the other  co-accused
in the transaction.  The aforesaid relationship  was  allegedly  established
from call data registers, depicting a relationship  between  the  petitioner
N. Kannapan and the other co-accused.
13.    R.  Chidambaram  (petitioner  in  SLP  (Crl.)no.8286  of  2012)    is
admittedly a quarry operator.  For quarrying operations,  he  is  admittedly
in possession of a valid quarry licence. He was issued 15 kgs.  of  gelatine
sticks and 60 detonators for quarrying  operations  by  the  Andaman  Public
Works Department.
According to the inferences drawn,  from  expert  opinion
sought  on  the  issue,  it  had  emerged,  that  the  gelatine  sticks  and
detonators officially  issued  to  the  petitioner  R.  Chidamabaram,  would
result in  excavation  of  450  metric  tonnes  of  boulders,  whereas,  the
petitioner R. Chidambaram is stated to have extracted 1590 metric tonnes  of
boulders.  
This,  according  to  learned  counsel,  was  evident  from   the
transport permits  used  by   R.  Chidambaram,  for  transportation  of  the
boulders.
According  to  the  learned  counsel  for  the  respondents,  the
boulders excavated by petitioner R. Chidambaram, were three folds more  than
what he could have, by using the explosives issued to  him  by  the  Andaman
Public Works Department.  It was also the contention of the learned  counsel
for the respondents, that the petitioner R. Chidamabaram was using  ammonium
nitrate for quarrying activities, in the area over which  he  had  a  lease.
It is pointed out, that R. Chidambaram was not issued any  ammonium  nitrate
by the concerned authority.  It is further submitted,  that  the  statements
of Armugam, Ganeshan, Sashi, Shanmugam, Mageshwaram and Karupaiah,  recorded
under Section 164 of the Code of  Criminal  Procedure,  also  revealed,  the
involvement of petitioner R.  Chidambaram  in  the  procurement  of  illegal
explosive substances, and of their use in his quarrying activities.  It  was
also submitted, that the aforestated Mageshwaram, during the course  of  his
statement  recorded  under  Section  164  Cr.P.C.  had   stated,   that   he
(Mageshwaram) used to collect money from  the  petitioner  R.  Chidamabaram,
and used to deposit the same in the account  of  Selvam.   It  is  therefore
submitted, that the involvement of petitioner R.  Chidambaram  is  based  on
concrete and unrefutable evidence.
14.   In the case of Sanjay Choudhary (petitioner in SLP (Crl.)  no.8730  of
2010), it was submitted by the learned counsel  for  the  respondents,  that
his (of Sanjay Choudhary) position, was exactly  the  same  as  that  of  R.
Chidambaram, and as such, the factual position projected in the case  of  R.
Chidamabaram, should be considered as against Sanjay Choudhary as well.   It
is pointed out, that the said similarity is on the following aspects.    The
money collected by Nagesh and deposited in Selvam’s  account.   The  use  of
ammonium nitrate without allotment of the same by the  competent  authority.
The statements of Shamugam, Ganesh and Sashi under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
 And
the fact, that although he was allotted only 15 kgs. of gelatine sticks  and
60 electronic detonators, which could at best result in  excavation  of  450
metric tonnes of boulders;  he was found to have extracted  and  transported
1905 metric tonnes of boulders, i.e., more than four times the amount  which
he could have excavated on the basis of the allotted explosives.
15.   Having considered the assertions  made  at  the  hands  of  the  rival
parties,
we are satisfied, that there is prima facie material, to  establish
the involvement of the petitioners in activities  violating  the  provisions
of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.  The consequences of  such  violation
are extremely serious.  The minimum punishment on conviction,  is  10  years
rigorous imprisonment. For  more  serious  activities,  the  punishment  can
extend to imprisonment for life, and with death penalty.  In the  pleadings,
and during the course of  hearing,  we  were  informed,  that  some  of  the
accused are still absconding.

 Obviously all  the  accused  are  financially well placed.  

Releasing them from jail at the  present  juncture,  when  the
prosecution has not even commenced to  examine  the  main  witnesses,  could
prove detrimental to the eventual outcome of the  trial.
Atleast  till  the
culmination of the evidence of the material witnesses, it is not  proper  to order  the  release  of  the  petitioners  on  bail.  
In  the   facts   and
circumstances noticed hereinabove, we hereby decline  the  prayer  for  bail
made by the petitioners.  The impugned orders passed by the High  Court  are
accordingly affirmed.
16.   Having disposed of the matter in the manner expressed hereinabove,  we
consider it just and appropriate to direct the prosecution to first  examine
the material witnesses.  It shall be open to the  petitioner(s)  to  move  a
fresh application for bail,  after  the  examination  of  all  the  material
witnesses.  Observations made in the instant order, on  the  merits  of  the
controversy, shall not prejudice any of the parties  during  the  course  of
the trial or thereafter.
17.   Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.


                                           …………………………….J.
                                            (Dr. B.S. Chauhan)


                                            …………………………….J.
                                            (Jagdish Singh Khehar)
New Delhi;
January 3, 2013.
-----------------------
12