AVTAR SINGH ALIAS MINTO Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Avtar Singh-appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, hereinafter tada. Through this appeal, he has questioned his conviction and sentence.

(2.) Though learned counsel for the appellant initially made an attempt to question the validity of the conviction of the appellant in the case arising out of fir No. 250 of 1988 dated 1/10/1988, by referring to some portions of the evidence of the police officials and panch witnesses relating to the making of a disclosure statement by the appellant leading to the recovery of an AK-47 rifle, two magazines, 98 live cartridges, but, faced with the overwhelming reliable and trustworthy evidence led by the prosecution in support of the disclosure statement and the consequent recovery of the incriminating material, he 199 confined his argument to the question of sentence only. We are, therefore, confining our consideration to the question of sentence only.

(3.) Mr Sodhi, learned counsel for the appellant argued that under Section 5 of TADA, the sentence prescribed ranges from a minimum of 5 years' rigorous imprisonment to life imprisonment but that the learned Designated Judge, after recording the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 5 of tada did not give any reasons whatsoever as to why the maximum sentence of life imprisonment was being imposed on the appellant. Learned counsel drew our attention to the order of the learned Designated Judge dated 16/4/1994 on the question of sentence and submitted that in view of the failure of the prosecution in the main case, the imposition of life imprisonment, in the established facts and circumstances of the case, was not justified.