NAZIR AHMED BHATT Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The manager of a bank had undergone the entire term of imprisonment to which he was sentenced by a designated Judge under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ('TADA' for short). He still persists in challenging the conviction and sentence presumably because the consequence of it would entail dislodgment from his office in the bank. He was found having involved in disruptive activities ranging to defying the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. On the strength of the aforesaid finding the designated Judge convicted him under S. 4 of TADA and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years besides a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. He was also convicted on other counts of offences such as Ss. 120-B, 419, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for lesser terms. As he completed his sentence by undergoing the term of imprisonment imposed under S. 4 of TADA he is deemed to have undergone the sentences imposed under the other counts as well because of the direction that the sentence of imprisonment under all the different counts shall run concurrently.

(2.) This appeal under Section 19 of TADA is, therefore, as of his statutory right and his senior counsel (Shri Sushil Kumar) has tenaciously pursued it despite the advantage that he need not now go back to jail.

(3.) But as the fall out of the conviction would visit him with dire consequences for his service tenure, learned senior counsel did not spare any effort to get him exonerated. We heard the arguments with all seriousness with which learned counsel projected them.