IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No.521 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.1977 of 2019)

HAFIZ ABDUL MAJEED Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondent(s)

WITH

Criminal Appeal No. 525 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(CRL.) No. 3822/2019)

Criminal Appeal No. 522 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(CRL.) No. 2708/2019)

Criminal Appeal No. 524 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(CRL.) No.4643/2019)

Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(CRL.) No. 5110/2019)

Criminal Appeal No. 527 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(CRL.) No. 324/2020)

Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(CRL.) No.1356/2020)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Signature Not Verified

These appeals challenge the common judgment and order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Digitally signed by Indu Marwah Date: 2022.04.01 17:12:36 IST Reason:

Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos.38, 44, 51- 53, 72 and 94 of 2018.

In Sessions Trial No.01 of 2012, on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, No.17, Jaipur, Jaipur City, eight persons namely, (i) Babu @ Nishachandra Ali, (ii) Arun Kumar Jain, (iii) Hafiz Abqul Majid, (iv) Kabil Khan @ Sayeed Khan, (v) Asgar Ali @ Vijay Sagar (vi) Pawan Puri @ Raja, (vii) Mohd. Iqbal @ Disa and (viii) Shakarullah @ Mohd. Hajif @ Amar Singh Gill were tried for having committed offences punishable under Sections 10, 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 20 & 21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 of 2008. ('the UAPA Act', for short) & under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC', for short)

The prosecution relied upon the testimony of 69 witnesses and 286 documents.

After considering the material on record, all 8 accused persons were convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 13, 17, 18, 18B and 20 of the UAPA Act and were sentenced as under:

"Accused appellants-Babu @ Nishachandra Ali, Arun Kumar Jain, Hafiz Abdul Majeed, kabil Khan @ Saeed Khan, Asgar Ali @ Vijay Sagar, Pawan Puri @ Raja, Mohd. Iqbal @ Deesa and Shakarulla @ Mohd Haneef @ Amar Singh Gill – have been convicted for offence under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short the Act of 1967) and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with

2

fine of Rs. 2 lakh each, in default to pay fine, to further undergo two years rigorous imprisonment.

Accused appellants Babu @ Nishachandra Ali and Pawan Puri have been convicted for offence under Section 17 of the Act of 1967 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3 lakh each, in default to pay fine, to further undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.

Accused appellants Babu @ Nishachandra Ali, Arun Kumar Jain, Hafiz Abdul Majeed, Kabil Khan @ Saeed Khan, Asgar Ali @ Vijay Sagar, Pawan Puri @ Raja, Mohd Iqbal @ Deesa and Shakarulla @ Mohd Haneef @ Amar Singh Gill have been convicted for offence under Section 18 of the Act of 1967 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3 lakh each, in default to pay fine, to further undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.

Accused appellants Babu @ Nishachandra Ali, Arun Kumar Jain, Hafiz Abdul Majeed, Kabil Khan @ Saeed Khan, Asgar Ali @ Vijay Sagar, Pawan Puri @ Raja, Mohd Iqbal @ Deesa and Shakarulla @ Mohd Haneef @ Amar Singh Gill have been convicted for offence under Section 18B of the Act of 1967 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3 lakh, in default to pay fine, to further undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.

Accused appellants Babu @ Nishachandra Ali, Arun Kumar Jain, Hafiz Abdul Majeed, Kabil Khan @ Saeed Khan, Asgar Ali @ Vijay Sagar, Pawan Puri @ Raja, Mohd Iqbal @ Deesa and Shakarulla @ Mohd Haneef @ Amar Singh Gill have been convicted for offence under Section 20 of the Act of 1967 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3 lakh each, in default to pay fine, to further undergo three years rigorous imprisonment."

The 8th convicted accused - Shakarullah @ Mohd. Hajif @ Amar Singh Gill, having died, the appeals preferred by the rest of the convicted accused were dealt with by the High Court vide its judgment and order under challenge. The High Court acquitted all the accused of the offence under Section 13 of the UAPA Act but convicted and sentenced them under Sections 17, 18, 18B and 20 of the UAPA Act. It, however, found that the sentence of life imprisonment was not warranted. It, therefore, reduced the substantive sentence from life imprisonment to that of 14 years rigorous imprisonment in respect of the offences under Sections 17, 18, 18B and 20 of the UAPA Act.

The substituted sentences were therefore as under:

"Accused- appellants-Babu @ Nishachandra Ali and Pawan Puri @ Raja: For offence under Section 17 of the Act of 1967, punishment of life imprisonment is substituted to that of 14 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in place of Rs. 3 lac each, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

Accused-appellants – Babu @ Nishachandra Ali, Arun Kumar Jain, Hafiz Abdul Mazid, Kabil Khan @ Saeed Khan, Asgar Ali @ Vijay Sagar, Pawan Puri @ Raja, Mohammad Iqbal @ Deesa & Shakarulla @ Mohammad Haneef @ Amar Singh Gill: For offence under Section 18 of the Act of 1967, punishment of life imprisonment is substituted to that of 14 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in place of Rs. 3 lac each, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

Accused-appellants – Babu @ Nishachandra Ali, Arun Kumar Jain, Hafiz Abdul Mazid, Kabil Khan @ Saeed Khan, Asgar Ali @ Vijay Sagar, Pawan Puri @ Raja, Mohammad Iqbal @ Deesa & Shakarulla @ Mohammad Haneef @ Amar Singh Gill: For offence under Section 18B of the Act of 1967, punishment of life imprisonment is substituted to that of 14 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in place of Rs. 3 lac each, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

Accused-appellants – Babu @ Nishachandra Ali, Arun Kumar Jain, Hafiz Abdul Mazid, Kabil Khan @ Saeed Khan, Asgar Ali @ Vijay Sagar, Pawan Puri @ Raja,

4

Mohammad Iqbal @ Deesa & Shakarulla @ Mohammad Haneef @ Amar Singh Gill : For offence under Section 20 of the Act of 1967, punishment of life imprisonment is substituted to that of 14 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in place of Rs. 3 lac each, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

All the sentences would run concurrently."

All the convicted accused being aggrieved, are in appeal before this Court. The State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal insofar as the offence punishable under Section 13 of the UAPA Act is concerned and against the reduction in sentence as stated above.

We have heard Mr. Ajay Majithia, learned Amicus Curiae for A-6, Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned Senior Advocate for A-3 & 4, Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned Advocate for A-2, Mr. Aarif Ali, learned Advocate for A-5 and Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, learned Advocate for A-1 & 7 while the State is being represented by Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Rahul Kumar and Mr. Vidhan Vyas, learned Advocates.

It must be stated that all the accused appellants have actually undergone more than 11 years 3 months of sentence as against the sentence of 14 years awarded to each one of them. Sections 17, 18 and 18B of the UAPA Act prescribe a minimum sentence of five years while Section 20 does not prescribe any minimum sentence.

Having given anxious consideration to the material on record and the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants, in our view, the assessment made by the High Court on the issue of conviction does not call for any interference. We therefore, affirm the view taken by the High Court and record that the appellants were rightly convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 17, 18, 18B and 20 of the UAPA Act.

However, considering the evidence on record as well as the fact that each one of them have undergone actual sentence of more than 11 years and 3 months, in our view, ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence is reduced to the one already undergone by each one of them. The imposition of fine and the default sentences as ordered by the High Court shall remain unchanged.

Ordered accordingly.

Therefore, subject to the payment of fine in terms of the order of sentence issued by the High Court, all the appellants be set at liberty forthwith unless their custody is required in any other case.

With these observations, the appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.

6

Before we close the matter, we must appreciate the sincere efforts put in by Mr. Ajay Majithia, learned Amicus curiae.

...........................J (UDAY UMESH LALIT)

............................J (PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)

New Delhi, March 31, 2022.

ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.2 SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

8

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1977/2019

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-10-2018 in DBCRA No. 53/2018 passed by the High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jaipur)

HAFIZ ABDUL MAJEED Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondent(s)

WITH SLP(Crl) No. 3822/2019 (II) (IA No. 90816/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 60378/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 90815/2020 - SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) SLP(Crl) No. 2708/2019 (II) ( IA No. 36041/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(Crl) No. 4643/2019 (II) (IA No. 68841/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(Crl) No. 5110/2019 (II) SLP(Crl) No. 324/2020 (II) (FOR GRANT OF BAIL ON IA 65989/2021) SLP(Crl) No. 1356/2020 (II) ((MR. AJAY MAJITHIA, ADVOCATE HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE.) IA No. 84594/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 31-03-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

For Petitioner(s) Jail Petition, AOR

Mr. Ajay Majithia, Adv. (A.C) Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Ms. Nirmala D. Borade, Adv. Mohd. Wasiq Khan, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR Mr. Kajal Kumar, Adv.

Mr. R.K. Dash, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR Mr. Aarif Ali Khan, Adv. Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Amar Kumar Raizada, Adv. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, Adv. Mr. A.R. Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. Danish Sher Khan, Adv. Mr. Paras Nath Singh, adv. Mr. Mrinal Kumar Sharma, Adv

Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Shishir Raj, Adv. Ms. Kavita Bhardwa, Adv. Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR Dr. Manish Singhvi, Senior Advocate Mr.Arpit Parkash, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Vidhan Vyas, Adv. Mr. Sunil Saraogi, Adv. Mr. Vidur Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER (SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE)