KARAN SINGH Vs. STATE DELHI ADMN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinater called TADA) is directed against the order of the Designated Court dated 28-2-1996 by which the appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 3 of TADA and sentenced to RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo RI for two months more.

(2.) According to the prosecution case on 1-5-1988 at about 11.30 a. m. while ASI Inder Singh PW-3 was on patrol duty along with Head Constable Satbir Singh and others, he received secret information to the effect that two boys were standing at the DTC bus stand at G. T. Road and had with them unauthorised arms and ammunitions. The police party after unsuccessfully making efforts of include some passers-by as witnesses, arrived at the spot and on being pointed out by the informer, apprehended the appellant. The appellant had a bag with him and from search of the bag, one country made pistol and three live cartridges were recovered. A sketch, Ex. PW2/A, of the pistol and and Ex. PW2/B of the cartridges was prepared. The pistol and the cartridges were sealed into two separate parcels at the spot by PW-3 who also filled up the CFSL form and attached the specimen of the seal thereto. A rukka, Ex. PW3/A, was prepared and sent to the police station through Constable Vijender Singh for registration of the case. Fromal FIR Ex. PW/A was registered. The appellant was arrested. On return, to the police station, the case property was deposited in the Malkhana. The case property was later on sent to the CFSL through Head Constable Jagdish Singh, PW4. According to the report of the CFSL, Ex. PW3/D, the pistol recovered from the appellant was found to be in working order and answered to the description of an arm under the Arms Act, The cartridges were also found to be in live and answered the description of ammunition under the Arms Act, After obtaianing sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act, the appellant was sent up for trial in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate for offences under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate framed charges against the appellant on 23-1-1991. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. While the matter rested thus, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate realised that the case was triable by a Designated Court and the matter was referred to the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge, on 7-2-1991, transferred the case of Shri B. N. Chaturvedi, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, Presiding Officer of the Designated Court. At the trial before the Designated Court, the prosecution examined four witnesses and produced certain documents on the record, including the report of the CFSL Ex. PW3/D. The learned Designated Court took judicial notice of the notification dated 20-10-1987 and by the order impugned herein, convicted and sentenced the appellant after finding that the prosecution had successflly established the case against the appellant.

(3.) Mr. Uma Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant firstly argued that the designated Court could not have taken cognizance of the case merely on the case being transferred to it by the Sessions Judge by his order dated 7-2-1991 and that even otherwise cognizance was taken by the Designated Court 7-2-1991 without any application of mind only on the case being assigned to him. For what follows, there is no merit in this argument.