MANORANJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 149 of 1993 (arising from FIR No. 190 of 1993 of Tilak Nagar Police Station). The learned Judge has convicted the appellant under section 5 of the TADA Act and also under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. For the offence punishable under section 5 of the TADA Act, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. For the offence punishable under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years.

(2.) IT was the prosecution case that the police had information that some terrorists of Punjab were to carry out explosions in various parts of Delhi and, therefore, they were keeping a watch at Vishnu Garden, Rajouri Garden and Tilak Nagar. A watch was also kept on the appellant who was residing in a house bearing No. F -167, near Vishnu Garden, as some unknown persons were seen visiting his house. On 6.4.1993, the police party consisting of Inspector Babu Singh, Inspector Nand Kishore and Sub -Inspector Satish Kumar decided to raid the premises in which they suspected that -explosive material was kept. They, therefore, went to the house of the appellant and took him to the office of the Operation Cell in Lodhi Colony for interrogation. The appellant made disclosure statement that Joginder Singh with whom he had good contact had taken a house on rent bearing No. C -44, near Vishnu Garden and they had kept some explosive material in that room. He then took the police party to that room. It was opened by a key which was with the appellant. The appellant then pointed out a rexine bag containing one dalda tin containing 2 kgs of RDX and one timer device. All these articles were seized by the police; and, after completing the investigation, charge -sheet was filed against the appellant and two others, namely, Gurmeet Singh and Joginder Singh. As Joginder Singh was not traced, the trial proceeded against Manoranjan Singh and Gurmeet Singh. The trial Court acquitted Gurmeet Singh as it was not proved that he had taken that room on lease and was in possession of it. The trial Court believed the evidence of PW 1 Babu Singh, PW 7 Nand Kishore and PW 12 Satish Kumar and held that the appellant was in conscious possession of the RDX recovered from that room. The trial Court also believed that the said RDX was recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the appellant. The appellant was, therefore, convicted as stated above.

(3.) WE , therefore, maintain the conviction of the appellant and also the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we set aside the sentence of fine. Subject to this small modification in the order of sentence, this appeal if dismissed.