In case of Mohmed Amin @ Amin Choteli Rahim Miyan
Shaikh and anr vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in (2008) 15 SCC 49 it was observed that for
proving a charge of conspiracy, it is not necessary that all
the conspirators know each and every detail of the
conspiracy. So long as they are coconspirators in the main
object of the conspiracy, it is not necessary that all
conspirators should participate from the inception of the
conspiracy to its end.
In Mohd. Amin's case(supra)
also the accused persons had not disputed their signatures on their
confessional statements and taking that fact into consideration as
also the fact that the allegations made by them regarding coercion,
torture etc. after more than one year of recording of confessions it
was held that the plea of torture etc. was afterthought and
products of ingenuity of their advocates and that statements made
Crl. A. Nos. 811/2007,
89/2008 and 90/2008 66
by them under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were also the result of
afterthoughts. In the present case, it is also significant to note that
none of the accused had taken a plea during investigation stage
that after their arrest they were tortured or in any other way
compelled to sign the documents purporting to be their
confessional statements. And if at all there had been any coercion
from the police they could have easily informed the ACMM that
they had not made the confessional statements which had been
placed before him by the police for getting the same confirmed
from them. They did not do that. It is also worth noticing that the
prosecution case was that only two of the accused had volunteered
to make confessional statements and the other accused had not
shown any such willingness. Now, if the confessional statements
of the accused were to be fabricated the police could have
prepared similar statements of other five accused also. That was
not done. The contradictory stands taken by the accused also lend
assurance to the prosecution case that the two accused had made
confessional statements before PW-1 and that too voluntarily.
4. Considered the argument of learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. From the fact, it appears that the applicant has filed present application with the same prayer, which has been prayed in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.24399 of 2019. The earlier application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. No.25399 of 2019 is pending. Interim order was granted. Now trial court has proceeded against the applicant in view of Supreme Court judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt.Ltd. and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. Therefore, applicant has filed present application. Second application for the same relief cannot be entertained. Applicant can raise his grievance in pending Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
2. The revenue's grievance is that ITAT has exceeded is jurisdiction in granting
stay beyond 365 days in this case which is not permissible in view of 3rd
proviso to section 254(2)(A). In this regard reliance has been placed upon
Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Ecom Gill Coffee Trading
Pvt. Ltd. Further reliance has been placed upon Hon'ble Apex court decision in
the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt.Ltd. Anr. Vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation.
In Mohd. Amin v. CBI, it was held that in order to come under
this provision it is not necessary for the accused to know the
detailed stages of conspiracy; mere knowledge of main
10
object/purpose of the conspiracy would suffice for this section.