BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 19 of the TERRORIST AND disruptive activities (prevention) ACT, 1987 (hereinafter called the 'tada') is directed against the judgment and order dated 14/2/1996 by which the appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 5 of TADA and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The prosecution case against the appellant is that on 6/4/1992, Public Witness 1 H. C. Maru Ram, who was in charge of PCR Van No. Victor 79, Maruti Gypsy bearing Registration No. DDV 6920 based in Kailash Colony, along with constable Chander Pal and driver constable Raj Kumar, received a wireless message at about 2. 05 p. m. to the effect that a person wearing green coloured pant, green coloured shoes and having a green coloured bag was present in suspicious circumstances and that if his bag was searched it might show presence of some contraband. On receipt of this information, Public Witness 1 along with the other members of the police party proceeded towards Relax Restaurant. On reaching Relax Restaurant, an enquiry was made from the owner of the Restaurant if he had seen any person with that description but he replied in the negative. In the meantime it was noticed that the appellant was sitting in a park at a short distance. He was wearing green coloured shoes, green coloured pant and had a green coloured bag with him. The police party reached near him. He became perplexed and tried to open the bag. He was however overpowered. Constable Chander Pal, Public Witness 2 snatched the bag from the appellant. On checking the bag, a rifle and some cartridges besides an empty magazine and a magazine containing live cartridges, fitted with the rifle were recovered. The appellant along with the seized articles was proceeded towards P. S. Greater Kailash and at the gate of the Police Station, SI Sukhbir Singh and Constable Pankaj met the police party. The bag containing 137 live cartridges and the magazine fitted with the rifle containing 24 live cartridges were taken into possession along with the rifle. Inside the green coloured bag there were two other bags. There was one patka also in the bag besides one white coloured bedsheet and a pink coloured bedsheet. Certain printed papers containing the name of Khalistan Armed Forces (Udhoke) were also recovered. On the rifle there was a sticker with the inscription in Gurmukhi "naam Khummari Nanaka Charri Rahe Din Raat"'. On the magazine also there was a sticker with the inscription "raj Karega Khalsa" in Gurmukhi. The rifle Ex. P-l along with two magazines Exs. P-2 and P-3 and the live cartridges numbering 161 (24 live cartridges in one magazine besides 137 cartridges) were taken into possession and were sealed into different parcels and sealed with the seal of SBS. The other articles, found from the personal search and from the search of the bags were also sealed into separate parcels and sealed with the seal of SBS. The sealed parcels were deposited with Moharrir Malkhana and were later on sent to the central Forensic Science Laboratory. The report of the central Forensic Science Laboratory PW-9/f shows that the sealed parcels containing the arms and ammunition with seal of SBS intact were received in the laboratory and on testing the rifle it was found to be in a workingorder. The ballistic expert opined that the rifle was an arm within the meaning of the Arms Act. One test cartridge was fired from the rifle and it was opined that 161 cartridges which had been recovered were live cartridges. On completion of the investigation, the appellant was tried for the offence under Section 5 of TADA and convicted and sentenced as noticed above.

(3.) The prosecution with a view to connect the appellant with the crime examined nine witnesses. It produced in evidence the affidavit of Moharrir Malkhana as also the reports from the CFSL. Various documents including the seizure rnemos etc. were also produced at the trial. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code denied the prosecution allegations against him. He examined DW 1. Manjit Singh. in his defence who had given a certificate to the effect that the appellant was bearing a good moral character.