RATTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 26 dated 16-11-1989 relating to Police Station Sadhaura, District Ambala, u / S. 25 of the Arms Act. The case against him is that he kept in his possession one country made pistol without any licence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, rejected his petition for bail by order dated 18- 11 - 1989 on the ground that the facts constituted an offence u/S. 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, which is exclusively triable by the Designated Court.

(2.) It is not disputed that the whole of the State of Haryana has been declared as notified area under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, which enures under the present Act of 1987.

(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no allegation that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of S. 25 of the Arms Act, "with intent to aid any terrorist or disruptionist" and, therefore, the offence is triable by the ordinary Court of Judicial Magistrate and not by the Designated Court. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Bimal Kaur Khalsa v. Union of India, AIR1988 P and H 95 : 1988 Cri LJ 869. In that case, one of the Civil Writ Petitions challenging the vires of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act relating to a case under the Act of the same title of 1985 D. S. Tewatia, Chief Justice (as his Lordship then was) speaking for the Full Bench collated S. 6 of the 1985 Act and the analogus Section (also S. 6) of 1987 Act and concluded in para 127 as under : -