BABU SATYAM BHAIYYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Special Designated Judge is deling with what has been registered in the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad as Terrorist Sessions Case No. 3 of 1990 against the present petitioners. The incident relating to the said case occurred on 14/5/1989 and at Amaraiwadi Police Station, an offence came to be registered at No. 242 of 1989 disclosing offences under sections 302, 120B of Indian Penal Code, under section 25 (i)(b)(a) of the Indian Arms Act and under section 3 and 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as The Terrorist Act) The latter Act is the focus of attention in this petition. Before the learned Designated Judge could frame the charge for offence under section 5 of the learned Designated Judge was moved to discharge the accused from offence under section 5 of the said Terrorist Act.

(2.) The argument advanced seems to be that by commission of the alleged offence by the petitioners, the people were not terrorized in any manner whatsoever and hence, the provisions of the Terrorist Act could not have been invoked. The learned Designated Judge dealt with application Ext. 5 on behalf of petitioner No. 1 and application Ext. 7 on behalf of petitioner No. 2 by a common order and rejected both on 23/8/1990.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid averment made in the applications Exts. 5 and 7 that people in fact were not terrorized, it seems that the attention had shifted to in the course of argument, whether section 5 itself makes it to be an independent offence under the Terrorist Act. The learned Designated Judge has clearly expressed himself of the effect in para 3 that section 5 of the Terrorist Act makes possession of a fire-arm in a notified area an offence punishable thereunder.