BALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stands convicted under three sections of three different enactments. Principal among them is Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). The other provisions are Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the Explosives Act. On the whole a sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years had been imposed on him besides a fine of Rs. 1000/-. He filed this appeal as of right under Section 19 of the TADA.

(2.) During the course of arguments we came across certain deficiencies which crept in the trial proceedings. One is that the deposition of Babu Ram (we are not sure whether Babu Ram was in the rank of P.W. 1 or P.W. 2), remains unsigned by him. How it happended is not explained to us by the learned counsel for the respondent as he is also taken by surprise when this was brought to his notice. A plea was made that the entire record purported to be the testimony of Babu Ram should be kept aside on account of that deficiency. Such a course will not be consistent with the principles of criminal justice. We, therefore, thought it more expedient to remit the case to the trial Court for filling up the said deficiency, for which Babu Ram has to be recalled and re-examined afresh.

(3.) The second aspect is, two documents purported to be affidavits signed by Shrimati Bimal Kaur Khalsa and Shri Kamal Jit Singh are seen marked as 'A' and 'B'. Apparantly they were not proved by the defence. Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned Senior Counsel made an endeavour to show that they may be relied on by this Court as evidence. Without adverting to the said contention, we adopt a course that the defence may be given an opportunity to prove those documents, for whatever worth they may be.