STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. S APPA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 19 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (in short 'tada'). There are thirteen respondents who were arrayed along with a number of other persons as accused before a Designated Court. Altogether forty seven persons were charge-sheeted by the police for various offences under the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3,4,5 and 6 of TADA; and also under certain Sections of the Indian Arms Act as well as under Section 4 of the Explosives Act. The case proceeded against 17 of those charge-sheeted persons. At some stage of the trial, the Public Prosecutor before the Designated Judge did not press the case relating to offences under the Penal Code. So the case was considered only in respect of the remaining offences. During the stage of arguments, the Public Prosecutor candidly admitted that offence under the Explosive Substances Act could not be established on evidence.

(2.) Ultimately the Designated Judge acquitted all the accused of all offences as per the judgment impugned in this appeal. But this appeal is confined to 13 out of 47 persons tried before the TADA Court. It would be convenient for us to refer to the 13 respondents with reference to the rank allotted to them in the trial court.

(3.) At the outset we put a question to Mr. A. S. Nambiar, learned senior Counsel who argued for the State of Andhra Pradesh as to whether there is any need for probing into the evidence in respect of the offences under Section 3 or 4 of the TADA (though Section 6 is also included in the indictment, we may point out that the said provision relates only to enhanced penalties and will not by itself constitute an offence). Learned Counsel made an endeavour first to show that the aforesaid offence can also be considered in this appeal. But after making a serious exercise, he realised that it would be an exercise in futility to press for those two offences under TADA. Even the endeavour to bring the offence within the purview of Sub-section (3) of Section 4 also wads discovered to be an uphill task beyond the limit of mere argument.