These two appeals were filed against the judgment of the
Designated Court NO.II, Madras (now Chennai) under the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'TADA
Act'). The present six appellants were tried for the offences punishable
under Sections 451, 381 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and
under Section 3(3) of TADA (P) Act. These appellants were acquitted of the
offence under T.A.D.A. but they were found guilty of offences under Sections
451 and 381 read with Section 120-B of I.P.C. On both these counts, they
were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
years each and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
These appellants were employees of Halliburton Offshore
Services Inc.Company. They were carrying out the
contract of offshore logging under the O.N.G.C. There was some dispute
between the employees and the management over the transfer of A-1 to
Bombay office and the appellants allege that PW 1, who was the Operations
Manager of the company, was inimically having disputes towards these
accused. The company was in possession of certain radio active resources
to find out the resource of natural gas. The allegation against these
appellants is that they have unlawfully trespassed into the workshop of the
company and took away three radio active resources and thereby committed
the offences as charged. On 23rd September, 1993 these radio active
resources were found missing from the office premises. On 24th September,
1993 PW 1 gave a complaint before the Station House Officer, Maduravayal
police station. The Sub- Inspector of Police -PW 20 took up the investigation
and these appellants were arrested thereafter. Later on the investigation was
handed over to the C.B.C.I.D. and PW 26-Inspector of Police took over the
investigation and he filed a report before the Court invoking the provisions
of the TADA Act. The Superintendent of Police recorded the confessional
statement the appellants 2,3 and 4 and pursuant to the confessions, certain
recoveries were also effected and the three radio active resources were
recovered and later on the final report was filed in the case. On behalf of
the prosecution, 26 witnesses have been examined. The appellants were
found guilty on the basis of their confessions and also the recovery made
pursuant to the statements made by the accused.
Heard both sides.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the materials
adduced by the prosecution are not sufficient to find the appellants guilty.
We do not find any force in the contention and the Designated Judge was
justified in holding that the appellants had committed the offence and
therefore, we confirm the conviction.
Though the articles so stolen were of serious nature but there is
no case that these appellants had any ulterior motive except to cause some
nuisance to the employer. It appears that due to transfer of A-1 to Bombay
they had some grievance against the management. There is also no
evidence to show that these appellants had stored the articles for the
purpose of gaining any financial benefit nor did they make any attempt to
sell away these articles to some others. We are told that the appellants have
already undergone the sentence for more than 1 year and 9 months. Having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the period of
imprisonment already undergone by the appellants is sufficient to meet the
ends of justice. Therefore, we confirm the conviction but reduce the
sentence to the period already undergone. The appellants are on bail and
their bail bonds are discharged.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.