SWAROOPA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is filed by the wife of the accused convicted under S. 3(2)(ii) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Sections 25(1)(b) and 27 of the Indian Arms Act in Sessions Case No. 272 of 1992 by the III Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. By the judgment dated 26/10/1992, the accused who was convicted under the aforementioned provisions was sentenced to suffer R.I. for eight years for the offence punishable under S. 3(2)(ii) of the Act; two years and four years respectively for the offences under Ss. 25(1)(b) and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The sentences are to run concurrently. Without filing an appeal under S. 19 of the Act, the present writ petition is filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the conviction and sentences and to declare that the Court had no jurisdiction to convict the accused.

(2.) When the writ petition came up before our learned sister, Maruthi, J., she referred the matter for a decision by the Division Bench. In the concluding para of the reference order, the learned Judge observed as follows :

(3.) The gravamen of the charge against the accused was that on 12-5-1992 at about 6.10 p.m., the accused was striking terror in the locality of Audaiyanagar by brandishing a sword and creating panic amongst the public uttering the words that persons who failed to pay "Rowdi Mamools" would be killed and on receiving an anonymous phone call, the police party led by the Inspector of Police (P.W. 4) of Market Police Station, Secunderabad overpowered the accused near the playground where he was standing. Then and there, M.O. 1 was seized under a panchnama (Ex. P.-1) in the presence of P.W. 3. On the information of the accused that he kept lethal weapons in his house, the police party along with P.W. 3 and the accused went to his house whereupon the accused picked up eight lethal weapons and one iron bar with nails (M.Os. 2 to 10). In the charge-sheet, the accused has been projected as a notorious criminal with a history of grave crimes. It is alleged that the accused could not be convicted as he was acquitted in many criminal cases as the witnesses did not dare to depose against him. The charge relating to the offence under S. 3(2)(ii) of the Act reads as follows :