1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.513 OF 1996

ALISTAIR & ORS                                 Appellant (s)

                     VERSUS

STATE OF TAMIL NADU                            Respondent(s)

WITH  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.663 OF 1996

ANTONY MARTIN & ANR                            Appellant (s)

                     VERSUS

STATE OF TAMIL NADU                            Respondent(s)

O R D E R

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.