IKRAM ALIAS AKHTAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule D.B.

(2.) This petition under Article 226of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr. P.C. seeks quashing of the order made by Sh. Babu Lal, learned Metropolitan Magis- trate on 26th April 1993 directing that the case be committed to Special Court for trial as, prima facie, offence under Section 5 of TADA is disclosed to be committed by the accused which is exclusively triable by the Designated Court. The accused was on bail because he was charged under Sections 25 and 27 of the Amis Act. The learned Magistrate after noticing that under the provisions of TADA he had no power to grant bail, directed that the accused be taken into custody and be produced before the Designated Court.

(3.) The undisputed facts are that since 1988 the accused petitioner is being tried for offences under the provisions of the Arms Act by the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner was granted bail on 2nd February 1988 on furnishing surety in the sam of Rs. 3,000.00 . The said bail was continuing till 26th April 1993. The case set up in the petition is that on 26th April 1993 the case was fixed before the Metropolitan Magistrate for recording the prosecution evidence 'and the prosecution withnesses were not present when the im- pugned order was made. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order after noticing that one country made revolver alongwith five cartridges were allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused on 1st February 1988 and that Delhi is a notified area for the purposes of TADA and was declared so in October 1987 and as the alleged offence was allegedly committed on 1st February 1988, possession of fire arm alongwith ammunition would prima facie attract the provisions of Section 5 of TADA. After holding that prima facie offence under Section 5 of TADA is disclosed to be committed by the accused and as the said offence is exclusively to be tried by the designated court, the case was directed to be commited to the Special Court for trial. The accused was on bail. The Magistrate directed that the accused be taken into custody as the court had no power to grant bail for offences under TADA and produced before the designated court.