Alistair & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu

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 2

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 3

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.

...............CJI.

(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

.................J. (P. SATHASIVAM) NEW DELHI;

5TH FEBRUARY, 2009.