JAGJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is accused of an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, for allegedly he was found in possession of a country-made pistol. Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, has been employed on the case, as concededly there is a notification by the Haryana State Government making all the provisions of the Arms Act applicable to the territories of Haryana under the said provision. It would be useful to reproduce section 6 herein :-

(2.) IT is obvious that enhanced penalties which may extend to 10 years and in certain circumstances even to life, are now to be imposed by the designated courts and not by ordinary Magistrate who are only empowered to impose a maximum sentence of three years. To say that enhanced penalties could be imposed by Magistrates with equal efficacy is to runaway from the hard realities of the times for which measures like the aforesaid Act have been brought on the book. It is the Designated Court established under Section 7 of the said Act, exercising jurisdiction under Section 9, who can try offence which attract punishment under any provision of the Act. And, Section 6 is one such provision, the non-obstante text therein, afore-emphasised, making it explicit.

(3.) THE bail has not been opposed by the learned Advocate General. Without discussing the merits of the case, I order release of the petitioner on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa. Order accordingly.