(1.) Keser Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called of the Code) for quashing the order and charged framed Vis. 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act, 1987 (for short, the Act) in case F.I.R. No. 15 dated 7.3.1993 (for under Section 302/34 I.P.C. Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of, the Act, registered in Police Station, Amloh district Patiala. The petitioner has also prayea A that he be released under Section 167 (2) of the Code on bail.
(2.) The case was registered on the basis if the statement made by Jagir Singh. The allegations g mentioned in the First Information Report read as under: -
(3.) Mr. R.S. Ghai, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the designated Court has erred in law in framing the charge under Section Sof the Act against the Petitioner, that the petitioner was not involved in the commission of the terrorist and disruptive activities, that merely because a fire arm has been used for committing an offence, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 5 of the Act without any further material to implicate the petitioner in such offence and that, taking the facts of the case, the introduction of offence under Section 5 of the Act was uncalled for and the case has to be tried by the ordinary Court. In support of his argument, he has relied upon Bijender Kumar v. State of Haryana, and Rattan Singh v. State of Haryana. Notice of this petition was given to the State and reply has been filed by Sh. Malkit Singh Inspector, S.H.O. Police Station, Amloh. It has been submitted by Shri Boparai that in order to attract the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, mere possession of fire - arms which are specified in category III (a) of Schedule of the Arms Rules 1962, is sufficient. In the reply, the S.H.O has not stated that the weapon recovered from the petitioner was used by him in terrorist disruptive activities.