LAL SIAMKUNGA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application, the Petitioners Lal Siamkunga and Raldothanga, both under trial prisoners, have challenged their detention in jail under GR Cases No. 1258 of 1989, 1259 of 1989, 1583 of 1991, 336 of 1991, 408 of 1991, 395 of 1992, 507 of 1992 and 394 of 1992 pending in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Aizawl, GR Cases referred to above, other than GR Case No. 394 of 1992, are in respect of offences either under the Indian Penal Code or Arms Act. GR Case No. 394 of 1992 is in respect of Sections 392, 343 and 506, IPC, and Sections 4 and 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA Act ', for short), and is pending before the Designated Court at Aizawl. The application of the Petitioners for bail has been rejected by the Designated Court. In Aizawl, the Additional District Magistrate was appointed as Judge of the Designated Court. The appointment of the Additional District Magistrate as Judge of the Designated Court is questioned in the present case.

(2.) UNDER Section 9 of the TADA Act, the Central Government or a State Government may constitute one or more Designated Courts for such area or areas, or such case or class or group of cases or as may be specified in the notification. Section 9further provides that the Designated Court shall be presided over by a Judge to be appointed by the Central Government or as the case may be, the State Government it, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court; and that a person shall not be qualified for appointment as Judge or an Additional Judge of a Designated Court unless he is, immediately before such appointment a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge in any Suite.

(3.) THE question now is, - Whether a Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate can be appointed as Judge of the Designated Court, under the TADA Act, in the Schedule Areas?