STATE Vs. AJIT SINGH ALIAS CHATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal raises a short question of law about the admissibility of confessional statement recorded under section 15 of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, in case which is transferred under section 18 of the Act. The question has arisen because a FIR was registered in Police Station, City Jammu under sections 3/4 TADA, 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act and 307 RPC on 16 -07 -91. A challan under sections 3/4 TADA and 302, 307, 325, 323 and 120 RPC was produced against (i) Parvinder Singh (ii) Ajit Singh (in) Narinder Singh; and (iv) Chain, whose parentage is not disclosed. As the offence under TADA is triable only by designated court, the Presiding Officer of the said court by his order dated 30 -07 -93, transferred the case to the Sessions Judge, Jammu in exercise of jurisdiction under section 8 of the TADA, holding that commission of offence under TADA is not disclosed. The Sessions Judge, Jammu it appears assigned the case to the Second Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) THE learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu after hearing the counsel for the accused and the Public Prosecutor, discharged the accused, Ajit Singh and Narinder Singh by order dated 18 -12 -83 holding that prima -facie no charge was made out against them on the basis of evidence relied by the prosecution. Since the main evidence relied by the prosecution was confessional statements of some of the accused recorded under section 15 of the TADA, the court held that this evidence is not admissible under the Evidence Act.

(3.) IT is this order, which has been challenged by State on the ground that in case the confessional statement of the accused is admissible, when the accused is charged and tried under TADA, the same cannot be held inadmissible, when the case is transferred under section 18 of the TADA. Let us examine the legal position. Section 18 of the TADA reads as under: - 18. Power to transfer cases to regular courts: Where, after taking cognizance of any offence, a designated court is of opinion that the offence is not triable by it. It shall notwithstanding that it has no jurisdiction to try such offence, transfer the case for the trial of such offence to any Court having jurisdiction under the Code and the court to which the case is transferred may proceed with the trial of the offence as if it had taken cognizance of the offence. So, the Designated Court while transferring the case under this section, had recorded a finding that offence, with which the accused were charged, was not triable by it. This order had become final.