BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Judge, Designated Court II, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 48 of 2001 holding that the proceedings can be legally continued against the appellant and took cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short the TADA Act) and Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the Arms Act).

(2.) The controversy lies within a very narrow compass and a brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. The appellant and one Paljit Kaur @ Richpal Kaur @ Pali wife of Paramjit Singh had allegedly committed offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of TADA Act and Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act. Charge sheet was filed on 20.8.1993. The allegations related to alleged commission of offence on 5th December, 1992. By amendment to TADA Act, Section 20-A(2) was introduced with effect from 22.5.1993 i.e. prior to filing of the charge sheet. Charges were framed on 16.12.1993. Bail was granted to the appellant on 6.5.1994. Subsequently, on expiry of eight years currency period, the term of TADA Act expired on 23.5.1995. By order dated 19.4.1997 the Designated Court held that in absence of sanction of the Commissioner of Police as required under sub-section (2) of Section 20-A of TADA Act, the proceedings were non est and the cognizance taken by the Court for offences under the TADA Act was bad in law.

(3.) The expression used by the concerned Court in the judgment dated 19.4.1997 was "acquittal of the accused persons for the want of sanction". Subsequently, pursuant to the order by the concerned Court goods seized were retained 3.2.1998. On 4.7.2001 sanction was accorded and the order in that regard was passed and the charge sheet was filed on 18.7.2001 and summons were issued on 2.3.2002 by the impugned order.