MOHAMMAD SALAUDDIN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, for short 'the Act', was allowed to be a history by efflux of eight years time fixed under sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Act, but the question whether the prosecution launched against the two petitioners in these two writ petitions under the provisions of the Act is valid or not is still engaging the attention of the Court.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P. No.7594 of 1996 is Accused No.8 and the petitioner in W.P.No.7700of 1996 is Accused No.2 in Sessions CaseNo.595 of 1994(Crime No.151/93) on the file of the Designated Court-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The petitioner in W.P. No.7594 of 1996 has prayed for Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the records in S.C. No.595/94 on the file of the Designated Court- cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad declaring that the action of the respondent in invoking the provisions of the Act, Explosive Substances Act and Sections 120-B, 124-A, 153-A and 153-B of Indian Penal Code as against the petitioner as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently discharge and set him at liberty of the said charges under the Act and direct the Designated Court to transfer the case to ordinary criminal Court to be dealt with in accordance with law. The petitioner in W.P.No.7700 of 1996 has prayed for a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction or order declaring that framing of the charges against him under the provisions of the Act in S.C. No.595 of 1994 is null and void and consequently discharge the petitioner from the offences under the Act and to direct the Designated Court to transfer the case in S.C.No.595 of 1994 to ordinary criminal Court for disposal in accordance with law as provided under Section 18 of the Act.

(3.) Since common questions of facts and that of law arise for our considerations and decision, the writ petitions were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Sri K.G. Kannabhiran, the learned senior counsel appeared for the petitioners and Sri Ramesh Ranganath, the learned G.P. for Home appeared on behalf of the learned Additional Advocate General and placed their submissions in support of their respective cases. The departmental file and the records in S.C. No.595 of 1994 are secured and placed before us. Counter-affidavit is also filed on behalf of the respondent-State in both the writ petitions.