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 Ss. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short the 'TADA Act') and Ss. 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.

(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.