Special Judge K. Kamanees noted that the accused were entitled for discharge as there was no evidence to show that any of the accused persons ever had any connection with the possession of the material
Special Judge K. Kamanees noted that the accused were entitled for discharge as there was no evidence to show that any of the accused persons ever had any connection with the possession of the material
Thadiyantavide Nazeer and Sharafuddeen, the two accused in the Bangalore blast cases, and three others were discharged in a case related to the alleged illegal possession of explosive substances from Kannur by the Kochi Special Court of the National Investigation Agency.
Issuing the order, the Special Judge K. Kamanees noted that the accused were entitled for discharge as there was no evidence to show that any of the accused persons ever had any connection with the possession of the material. Though the accused were represented by lawyers in the court, they did not argue on framing charges. However, the court on itself inspected the records and ordered the discharge.
The prosecution case was that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention to cause explosions across the country, had illegally possessed the explosive substance and hid it in the property abutting the house of Fayaroose, the fifth accused, in Chembulod grama panchayat, in Kannur.
The explosive materials were found out by the a police team, which conducted a search in 2009.
To prove the offence under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, the court noted that the there should be proof that the accused possessed or had under their control any explosive substance, with intent to endanger life or to cause serious injury to the property, or to enable any other person by means to endanger life or cause serious injury to property in India.
There was no direct evidence to show that the explosive substances recovered by the police in the case were dealt with by any of the accused persons. No records were also available to substantiate the argument that the accused had possessed the explosive materials. Proceeding with a case, which totally lacked any material to connect the accused on any score will only entail wastage of judicial time, the court held.
The materials produced by the prosecution were highly insufficient even to make out a prima facie case against the accused that they had in some way or other been responsible for hiding the ammonium nitrate in the property. The prosecution records utterly failed to bring home any offence under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, the court noted.
