As per case facts, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) charged respondents, members of a banned organization, with conspiring to plant pipe bombs targeting former Union Ministers in various locations. Several ...
CRL A No.275 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-01-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRL A No.275 of 2022
Union of India rep by its
Superintendent of Police
National Investigation Agency, Chennai
Appellant
Vs
1. Thiruselvam @ Kumar @ Sankar @
Murali @ Murasu @ Kannan
S/o Raman
No.74, Vasuki Street, Villapuram
Madurai District
Permanently at Koomathipatti
Bhaganeri Post, Kallal Police Station
Limits, Karaikudi Taluk
Sivagangai District
2.Thangaraj @ Thamizharasan
S/o Mani
Presently residing at
No.29, AGS Officers Colony
Alwarthirunagar, Chennai
Permanently at Bhavanakottai
Devakottai Taluk, Sivaganga District
Tamil Nadu
3.Kaviarasan @ Raja
S/o Ganesan
Anadkudi Village
Thiruvengampatthu Post
1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.275 of 2022
Devakottai Taluk
Sivagangai District
4.Kalailingam @ Kalai
S/o Ramar
Koomathipatti, Bhaganeri Post
Kallal Police Station Limits
Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District
5.Karthik @ Aadhi @ Jeeva
S/o Vijayan
Presently Residing at
59/60, Jaihind Puram
Solai Alagarpuram 3rd Street
Madurai
Permanently residing at 270A,
Periyar Street, Thanigai Nagar,
2nd Street, Thirunagar
Madurai District
6.John Martin @ John @ Illanthanai
S/o Arokiam
Odaikkal Village, Sanaveli Post
Thiruvadanai
Ramanathapuram District
Respondents
Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeal filed under Section 21 of
the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 to enhance the sentence imposed
upon the respondents herein in Special Sessions Case No.5 of 2014 dated
04.02.2022 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge/Special Judge for
NIA Cases, Puducherry and direct the sentence to run consecutively, instead of
concurrently.
For Appellant:Mr.E.Chandrasekaran
Special Public Prosecutor for
NIA cases
For Respondents:Mr.P.Pugalenthi for
R1 to R3, R5 and R6
Mr.R.Sankarasubbu for R4
2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.275 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by P.Velmurugan J.)
1.1. The appellant registered the case in R.C.No.01/2014/NIA of
Hyderabad against the respondents herein on the ground that all of them have
been the members of the notified banned terrorist organisation viz., Tamilnadu
Liberation Army (TNLA) and were leading an underground life for their anti-
social, anti-national and criminal activities. In order to show their vengeful
protest against the policies of the Union Government, the respondents, while
targeting the law makers, more particularly, against two former Union Ministers
Mr.V.Narayanasamy and Mr.P.Chidambaram, entered into a criminal conspiracy
to plant and explode pipe bombs in different places in Tamil Nadu and
Puducherry. Accordingly, with a criminal intent, they chose Puducherry as the
first place to execute their plan of planting pipe bomb to commemorate the
death anniversary of their comrades Tamizharasan and Muthukumaran and on
29.01.2014, they planted the pipe bomb containing explosive substances filled
in a cylindrical metal pipe of about one feet in length and four inches in
diameter, closed and fitted at both the ends with cap-nuts and attached fuse
wire, beneath the car with Regn.No.PY-01-BT-9595 parked in front of the
residential house of Mr.V.Narayanasamy, former Union Minister apparently
with a view to endanger the life of the Minister, his family members and also
the general public. Fortunately, the unexploded explosive device with half-
3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.275 of 2022
burnt wick was noticed by the security personnel on duty, who alerted the law
enforcement agencies and the pipe bomb was seized and later defused by the
Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad team, thereby ensuring the safety of one
and all. In this connection, a case in Crime No.25 of 2014 was registered on
29.01.2024 by the Odiansalai Police Station, Puducherry against the
respondents, which case was subsequently transferred to the file of National
Investigation Agency, Hyderabad.
1.2. Similarly, on 11.02.2014, the respondents had placed a similar type
of pipe bomb on the back side wall of the commercial establishment called
‘Reliance Mart’ at Utangudi, Madurai and luckily, the planted pipe bomb did
not explode in this place and a case in Crime No.47 of 2014 was registered on
11.02.2014 by the Othakadai Police Station, Madurai against them. The said
case is pending trial as on date.
1.3. In furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, the respondents had
planted yet another similar type of pipe bomb on 04.02.2014 at the outer
compound wall of the residential house of the then Union Minister
Mr.P.Chidambaram and the same exploded mildly causing minimal damage to
the compound wall. They also threw some printed pamphlets in the name of
the banned organisation in the premises. Hence, a case in Crime No.10 of 2014
was registered by the Nachiyapuram Police Station, Sivaganga on 25.02.2014
against them. This case was later committed to the Court of Session, Sivaganga
4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.275 of 2022
in S.C.No.133 of 2014 and subsequently tried by the Special Court for Bomb
Blast Cases, Poonamallee in Special S.C.No.7 of 2017 convicting the
respondents for the offences and sentencing them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 5 years, as stated therein.
2. The present appeal concerns with the case registered in
R.C.No.01/2014 on the file of National Investigation Agency, Hyderabad
against the respondents. In this case, after completion of formalities under
Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the respondents were arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 6 and
were tried in Special Sessions Case No.5 of 2014 on the file of the learned
Special Judge for N.I.A. Cases at Puducherry for the charges under Section
120-B IPC read with Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908;
Sections 16(1)(b), 18, 20 & 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967. During the course of trial, in order to substantiate the charges framed
against the respondents/accused, on the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW51
were examined and Exhibits P1 to P62 were marked, besides MO1 to MO9-
material objects.
3. After completion of examination of the prosecution witnesses, the
incriminating materials were culled out from the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses and put to the respondents/accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C,
5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.275 of 2022
whereby they admitted their guilt and pleaded lesser sentence. However, on the
side of the defence, neither oral nor documentary evidence was produced. The
trial Court, after considering the evidence let in by the prosecution during the
course of trial, besides the plea of guilt admitted by the respondents/accused
themselves, held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt and accordingly found the respondents/accused guilty of all the offences
charged against them. The trial Court, taking into account that the occurrence
in all the three cases took place pursuant to the conspiracy hatched by the
accused persons and was a continuous action and thus the accused persons are
entitled to the benefit of Section 427 Cr.P.C., has convicted and sentenced the
respondents/accused to undergo the period of sentence as shown hereunder:-
“(a) A1 is convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years for the offence U/s 120-B IPC
r/w Sec. 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and to pay
a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one year; to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years for the
offence U/s 4 (a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and to pay
a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one year; to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years for the
offence U/s 16 (1) (b) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years
for the offence U/s 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.275 of 2022
one year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years
for the offence U/s 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years
for the offence U/s 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a f ine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year;
(b) A2 is convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 5 (five) years for the offence U/s 120-B IPC
r/w Sec. 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and to pay
a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for116 one year; to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 5 (five) years for the
offence U/s 4 (a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and to pay
a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one year; to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 5 (five) years for the
offence U/s 16 (1) (b) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 5 (five) years
for the offence U/s 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and to
pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one year; to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 5 (five) years for the
offence U/s 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one
year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 5 (five) years for
the offence U/s 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 5 (five) years
for the offence U/s 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.275 of 2022
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year;
(c) A3 is convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years for the offence U/s 120-B IPC
r/w Sec. 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and to pay
a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one year; to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years for the
offence U/s 4 (a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and to pay
a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one year; to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years for the
offence U/s 4 (b) (I) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and to
pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one year; to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years for the
offence U/s 16 (1) (b) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years
for the offence U/s 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years
for the offence U/s 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years
for the offence U/s 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year;
(d) A4 is convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years for the offence U/s 120-B IPC
r/w Sec. 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and to pay
8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.275 of 2022
a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one year; to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years for the
offence U/s 4 (a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and to pay
a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one year; to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years for the
offence U/s 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and to pay a
fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one year; to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years for the
offence U/s 16 (I) (b) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years
for the offence U/s 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years
for the offence U/s 20 of118 Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo
R.I. for one year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7
(seven) years for the offence U/s 23 of Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default
to undergo R.I. for one year;
(e) A5 is convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years for the offence U/s 120-B IPC
r/w Sec. 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and to pay
a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one year; to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years for the
offence U/s 4 (a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and to pay
a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one year; to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years for the
9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.275 of 2022
offence U/s 4 (b) (I) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and to
pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one year; to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years for the
offence U/s 16 (I) (b) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years
for the offence U/s 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years
for the offence U/s 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years
for the offence U/s 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year;
(f) A6 is convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years 7 (seven) years for the offence
U/s 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act,
1908 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years
for the offence U/s 4 (a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908
and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one
year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years for
the offence U/s 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908; and to
pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one year; to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years for the
offence U/s 16 (I) (b) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.275 of 2022
one year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years
for the offence U/s 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years
for the offence U/s 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 (seven) years
for the offence U/s 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for
one year;
Total fine amount is Rs.20,500/-.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently as per
Section 427 Cr.P.C. along with the sentence passed in Special
S.C.No.7 of 2017 on the file of Special Court, Bomb Blasts
Cases, Poonamalle, since the conspiracy in all the three cases
are from the same place. The period of detention already
undergone by the accused are ordered to be set off U/s 428 of
Cr.P.C., since all the three incidents are connected to each
other.”
4. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the respondents/accused
have not chosen to file any appeal. However, the National Investigation
Agency has filed the present appeal challenging the quantum of sentence
awarded by the trial Court.
5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.275 of 2022
appellant submitted that when the respondents/accused have been charged for
the offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the
Explosive Substances Act, 1908, which are grave and serious in nature having
an impact on the society at large as well as the national security and communal
harmony of the nation, in their act of entering into a conspiracy to take away the
lives of the political leaders of this country, more particularly, to take away the
life of former Union Minister Mr.P.Chidambaram, for which the case was tried
in Special Sessions Case No.7 of 2017 by the Special Court for Bomb Blast
Cases, Poonamallee and the same also ended in conviction and sentence
imposed on all the accused for the offences stated therein, the trial Court in this
case, after accepting the admission of guilt by the respondents/accused
themselves and after finding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all
reasonable doubt, ought to have awarded the maximum punishment of life
imprisonment provided under the Act to all the accused. Instead, the trial Court
has awarded only 5 years of imprisonment to A2 and 7 years of imprisonment
to other accused and therefore the appellant has filed the present appeal for
enhancement of sentence and also challenging the finding of the trial Court that
the sentences imposed in Special Sessions Case No.5 of 2014 are to run
concurrently as per Section 427 Cr.P.C with the sentences imposed in Special
Sessions Case No.7 of 2017 by the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases,
Poonamallee.
12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.275 of 2022
6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would further submit that the
subject matter of the present appeal is entirely different with the Special
Sessions Case No.7 of 2017 decided by the Special Court for Bomb Blast
Cases, Poonamallee, since separate criminal cases were registered and the
investigation was also conducted separately and that the charge sheets were also
filed separately in respect of each incident. Moreover, the cases were taken on
file by different Courts and the evidence were recorded separately. When the
case in Special Sessions Case No.7 of 2017 was tried separately by the Special
Court for Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee and the conviction was recorded
against all the accused, there was no appeal against the said conviction and
sentence by the accused. Since the present case, which is the subject matter of
appeal, has also been tried separately on different cause of action on merits and
in accordance with law, the learned trial Judge, while convicting and sentencing
the accused, has awarded only the minimum sentence. Not stopping with this,
the learned trial Judge has also extended the benefit to the accused in ordering
the sentences to run concurrently, as per Section 427 of Cr.P.C, along with the
sentences imposed in Special Sessions Case No.7 of 2017 on the file of the
Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee, which is against criminal
jurisprudence and the same is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal. In
support of his contentions, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has placed
reliance on the following decisions:-
13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.275 of 2022
(i) Judgment of Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.253 of
2017 dated 02.08.2017 (Neera Yadav v. Central Bureau of
Investigation)
(ii) Judgment of Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1457 of
2021 dated 07.12.2021 (Mohd Zahid v. State through NCB)
(iii) Judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Chandrika reported in (1999) Supp.4 S.C.R. 239
(iv) Judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh and another reported in AIR 1992
SC 2100
(v) Judgment of Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Akhtar
Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Assistant Collector of
Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad and others reported in (1988)
Supp.2 S.C.R. 747
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents/accused would submit that though three criminal cases were
registered and three different charge sheets were filed in three different Courts
pertaining to one cause of action, the learned trial Judge, considering the nature
of offences committed by the respondents/accused and also their admission of
guilt and since there was also no loss of lives, has awarded the minimum
sentence, which has been ordered to run concurrently by invoking Section 427
of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the respondents/accused have not filed any appeal against
both the conviction and sentence awarded in this case as well as in Special
Sessions Case No.7 of 2017 on the file of the Special Court for Bomb Blast
Cases, Poonamallee. When the respondents/accused have accepted their guilt,
14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.275 of 2022
even though three different cases were registered against them and whereas the
version of the prosecution is one and the same in all the cases, whether the
sentence shall run concurrently or consecutively, is purely the discretion
exercised by the Court and therefore the present appeal itself is not
maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have heard the submissions made by the learned Special Public
Prosecutor for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and
perused the materials available on record.
9. Admittedly, the case was registered by the appellant against the
respondents/accused in R.C.No.01/2014 of N.I.A., Hyderabad, which was later
tried by the learned Special Judge for N.I.A. Cases, Puducherry in Special
Sessions Case No.5 of 2014 for the offences charged against each of the
accused. While questioning the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C as to the
incriminating materials put against them, the respondents had accepted the case
of the appellant and also the evidence let in by the prosecution and that they
have further pleaded guilty of the offences charged. Therefore, this Court need
not elaborate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also the finding
regarding the conviction is in order or not, in this case. Upon reading of the
entire materials and also the acceptance of guilt by the respondents themselves
15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.275 of 2022
for the charges framed against them, this Court, exercising appellate
jurisdiction, finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable
doubt through substantial evidence.
10. Now the National Investigation Agency has filed the present appeal
challenging the quantum of sentence awarded by the trial Court. However, a
reading of the entire materials would show that the respondents were involved
in two other criminal cases targeting the lives of two former Union Ministers of
this country. Fortunately, there was no loss of lives since the bombs came to be
defused. Even in the other case tried in Special Sessions Case No.7 of 2017 on
the file of the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee, based on the
materials and also the admission of guilt, the Court convicted the accused and
awarded the minimum sentence of 5 years on them. Neither the National
Investigation Agency nor the accused had challenged the said judgment of
conviction and sentence. Moreover, that case was tried by Court below in the
State of Tamil Nadu. Whereas in the subject matter of appeal, the trial was
conducted in the Union Territory of Puducherry and the materials on record
would show that the respondents/accused have committed the offence and the
prosecution also proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, besides the
admission of guilt by the respondents themselves. Therefore, regarding the
conviction, this Court need not give any reasoning, which remains
16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.275 of 2022
unchallenged. So far as the sentence is concerned, since the respondents
involved in two other cases of similar nature and the charges are also serious
and grave and that though the Act prescribed the minimum sentence of seven
years, as already stated, even before executing the plan of conspiracy, the cases
were registered and the prosecution, after completion of investigation, laid the
charge sheets. On completion of trial, the trial Court found that since the
charges framed against the respondents/accused were proved beyond all
reasonable doubt, they were convicted for the offences and were awarded the
minimum sentence. This Court also, while re-appreciating the evidence and the
circumstances of the case, finds that the award of minimum sentence of 7 years
on the respondents/accused would meet the ends of justice. In view of this
finding, the appeal so far as the enhancement of sentence is concerned, stands
dismissed.
11. However, the appellant is also aggrieved by the judgment of the trial
Court in ordering the sentences to run concurrently by invoking Section 427 of
Cr.P.C. As already stated, though all the three cases are similar in nature
pursuant to the conspiracy hatched by the accused and the cases came to be
registered at different places, the appellant as a prosecuting agency has not filed
any application to club all the three cases to be tried together by one Court,
either at the stage of investigation or at the stage of trial. The respondents also
17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.275 of 2022
accepted all the charges framed against them by different Courts and also
pleaded guilty. Therefore, now they cannot say that they are one and the same
and also arising out of the same cause of action. When the Special Court for
Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamalle has already tried the case in Special Sessions
Case No.7 of 2017 and confirmed the guilt of the respondents and thereby
awarded the sentence of 7 years to be undergone by the accused persons and the
same was not under challenge and now the learned trial Judge, though tried the
case separately for separate cause of action, while awarding sentence,
considering it as same/similar, has ordered the sentence to run concurrently
with the sentence imposed in Special Sessions Case No.7 of 2017 on the file of
the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee, which is against the law
for exercise of discretion under Section 427 of Cr.P.C. Since Special Sessions
Case No.5 of 2014 was tried separately for the charges framed against the
accused, the sentences awarded in both the cases cannot be ordered to run
concurrently. The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed in Special
Sessions Case No.7 of 2017 is nothing to do with the conviction and sentence
passed in Special Sessions Case No.5 of 2014. Therefore, that portion of the
judgment directing the sentence to run concurrently is alone set aside and the
appeal stands partly allowed. Needless to state that the sentence of
imprisonment awarded to the respondents/accused in Special Sessions Case
No.5 of 2014 shall commence upon expiration of the sentence of imprisonment
18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.275 of 2022
awarded to the respondents/accused in re-numbered Special Sessions Case No.7
of 2017. However, the period of detention already undergone by the accused in
the present case in Special Sessions Case No.5 of 2014 is ordered to be set off
under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
12. With the above observation, the appeal stands partly allowed.
(P.VELMURUGAN J.) (M.JOTHIRAMAN J.)
05-01-2026
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ss
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge/Special
Judge for N.I.A Cases, Puducherry
2. The Superintendent of Police
National Investigation Agency, Chennai
3. The Special Public Prosecutor
for NIA Cases, Chennai
19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL A No.275 of 2022
P.VELMURUGAN J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
ss
CRL A No. 275 of 2022
05-01-2026
20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Legal Notes
Add a Note....