JUDGMENT : 1. Challenging the order of acquittal of the respondent, dated 22.11.2002, made in C.C. No. 59 of 2000, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Totally there are five accused in this case. The respondent herein is accused No. 1 and stood charged for an offence under Section 120(b) I.P.C. A2 to A5 stood charged for an offence under Section 10 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, all the accused also stood charged for the offence under Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the said Act. A2 to A5 stood charged for an offence under Section 14 of Foreigners Act and Order 3(1) of Foreigners Orders. Before the trial Court, A2 to A5 pleaded guilty and they were sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and the trial Court, after trial, acquitted the respondent. Now, challenging the order of acquittal, the present appeal has been filed. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (i) The respondent herein/A1 is the resident of Madurai Town. A2 to A5 are the citizens of Srilanka and they are all the supporters of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which is a banned organisation in India. All the accused have purchased artificial limbs and groceries and other essential commodities and they planned to transport the same to Srilanka via Bamban at Ramanad District. While so, on 14.08.1998, at about 01.30 a.m. while the respondent police was on patrol duty, A1 in this case found carrying a parcel and on enquiry, he confessed that he is a supporter of the banned LTTE Organisation and he is purchasing essential commodities for the above said Organisation and he used to send the same through a boat from Bamban to Nachiguda in Srilanka. He further stated that based on the purchase order given by one Sridhar, a member of the said Organisation, he purchased notebooks, batteries as well as video and audio cassettes, and other essential commodities, transported the same to Srilanka through Bamban. He also purchased artificial Limbs from one Ashok, an Orthopaedic Engineer, who is manufacturing and selling the artificial limbs having shop at Madurai, for the purpose of sending the same to Srilanka. Based on that, the police recovered the essential commodities, M.O.21 to 50. He also purchased artificial Limbs from one Ashok, an Orthopaedic Engineer, who is manufacturing and selling the artificial limbs having shop at Madurai, for the purpose of sending the same to Srilanka. Based on that, the police recovered the essential commodities, M.O.21 to 50. Thereafter, based on the complaint given by PW-24, a case was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1) and 13(2) of the of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, read with Section 3 of the Passport Act, 1967. Thereafter, the police seized a boat at Bamban and also arrested A2, who has voluntarily gave confession, based on the disclosure statement, the police also seized the Lorry M.O.31, a country boat and oil engine M.O.32, the investigation has been conducted by PW-24 and he recorded the statement of witnesses and after investigation, he filed the final report for the above said offences. (ii) Considering the above materials, the trial Court framed charges against the accused. The first accused denied the same and the other accused A2 to A5 pleaded guilty as mentioned above. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and marked 41 exhibits and 32 material objects. (iii) Out of the witnesses examined, PW-1 witness for the seizure turned hostile. PW-2 witness for the seizure is also turned hostile. PW-3 manufacturing artificial limb and according to him A1 ordered for two artificial limbs and he delivered the same to A1. PW-4 running a Tea Shop turned hostile. PW-5 spoke about the identification of the boat and also the goods loaded in the boat. PW-6 is the owner of the boat, according to him, he purchased the boat from one Kalanjiam for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- he was treated as hostile. PW-7 is the Inspector of Police, Madurai City "Q" Branch Police, according to him, he has arrested A1 and based on his confession, he recovered the material objects, and registered the complaint, thereafter he arrested other accused. PW-8 is the driver of the lorry and told that he only transporting the goods from Madurai to Bamban. PW-9 is the owner of the groceries store, according to him, he knew A1 for the past one year and A1 used to give bulk orders to him. On 13.08.1998, A1 purchased large amount of notebooks. PW-10 spoke about the purchase of the country boat from PW-6. PW-11, accountant also turned hostile. PW-9 is the owner of the groceries store, according to him, he knew A1 for the past one year and A1 used to give bulk orders to him. On 13.08.1998, A1 purchased large amount of notebooks. PW-10 spoke about the purchase of the country boat from PW-6. PW-11, accountant also turned hostile. PW-12 spoke about the purchase of country boat by A1 from PW-6. PW-13 also spoke about the purchase of boat by A1 and PW-14 who was working as Inspector, Fisheries Department, Thoothukudi, spoke about the renewal of licence for the country boat. PW-15 a financier, spoke about the loan given to A1 to purchase the lorry. PW-16 the receptionist in Aruppukkottai lodge at Chennai, according to him A1 stayed there. PW-17 a book-seller, according to him, A1 placed bulk order for purchasing books. PW-18 guest of the lodge at Madurai staying in the lodge identified A1. PW-19 the Sub Inspector of Police (Law and Order), Mandapam Police Station, spoke about the arrest of A6 with explosive substances. PW-20 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Madurai City "Q" Branch Police, maintaining a history sheet of A1 and monitoring his activities. PW-21 Stephen, who had attested the confession statement of the accused. PW-22 who is a witness to the arrest of A2 to A5 and attested the confession statement. PW-23 Inspector of Police in the Madurai City "Q" Branch Police, Madurai is also monitoring the activities of A1 and recorded the confession statement of A1. PW-24-the then Inspector of Police in Madurai City "Q" Branch Police, Madurai is the investigating officer, who conducted the investigation and arrested the accused and seized the material objects and also recorded the statement of witnesses and after completing the investigation, he filed charge-sheet. 4. When the above incriminating materials put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. A1 denied the same. A2 to A5 pleaded guilty and they were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court. A1 contested the case and examined one Ravi as DW-1 and did not mark any documents. Considering the above materials, the trial Court acquitted the accused and challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed. 5. I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records carefully. 6. Considering the above materials, the trial Court acquitted the accused and challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed. 5. I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records carefully. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that there are ample evidence available on record to show that A1 in this case, in connivance with A2 to A5, purchased the essential commodities and transported the same to Srilanka via Bamban through a country boat belonged to him. Even-though some witnesses turned hostile, the evidence available on record shows that the respondent has purchased the essential commodities for LTTE (a banned organisation in India) and transported the same to Bamban through his lorry with the help of A2 to A5. The Court below without considering all the material evidence, pointing out minor contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, acquitted the accused. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there is lot of contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Based on confession, A1 has been arrested and his confession was not proved by the prosecution. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that A1 is the owner of the boat through which the essential commodities were said to have been transported to Srilanka for LTTE, the mahazar witnesses turned hostile. Since the charge was not proved, the court below acquitted the accused. There is no need to interfere in the order of the court below. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and materials on record. 9. From the materials, the charge against the respondent is that he along with other four accused conspired together and in order to help LTTE purchased the essential commodities, like petrol, diesel, groceries, stationeries and auto spare parts and planned to transport the same to Srilanka. Hence, he committed offences punishable under Section Section 120(b) IPC and Sections 13(1), 13(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 10. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent has purchased the essential commodities and also artificial limbs and transported the same from Madurai to Bamban by his own lorry and thereafter he along with other accused, illegally transported the same to Srilanka through the boat owned by him. PW-7 the Inspector of Police "Q" Branch arrested A1 and also seized some essential articles. PW-7 the Inspector of Police "Q" Branch arrested A1 and also seized some essential articles. Thereafter based on his confession, he seized the country boat and also other essential commodities. To prove the seizure, the prosecution examined PW-1 and PW-2, the mahazar witnesses, but they turned hostile. Apart from that even-though the prosecution has examined PW-3, who said to have manufacturing artificial limbs, according to him, A1 purchased only two artificial limbs, but the police seized 40 artificial limbs. The prosecution examined PW-9 the groceries shop owner, spoke about the purchase of groceries, but no material to show that groceries were purchased by A1 and being transported to LTTE. The further case of the prosecution is that A1 is the owner of the country boat through which he transported the goods and he has purchased the same from PW-6. But PW-6 turned hostile, and absolutely there is no evidence to show that the respondent is the owner of the boat and he has sought to transport the essential commodities to Srilanka. The witnesses examined by the prosecution to show that A2 to A5, who have stayed at Madurai in a lodge and there is no evidence to prove that they were all in contact with A1. The prosecution claimed that the respondent/accused is the owner of the lorry and the goods were transported through the lorry, but there is no evidence to prove that the goods were transporting to Srilanka. Even-though A2 to A5 has pleaded guilty and they were convicted, absolutely there is no material available on record to show that the respondent/accused conspired together with A2 to A5 and committed offences stated supra and also supported the banned LTTE. 11. Considering all these materials, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the offence against the respondent/accused was not proved beyond any reasonable doubt, thereby acquitted the accused. 12. In an appeal/revision against acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him, the fundamental principle of criminal justice delivery system is that every person accused of committing an offence shall be presumed to be innocent, unless his guilt is proved by a competent Court of law. Secondly, if the accused has secured an order of acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Secondly, if the accused has secured an order of acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 13. In the instant case, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused. Hence, I find no perversity in the judgment of the trial Court. In the above said circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed. 14. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.