SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE KULDIP SINGH AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Versus
ABDUL HAMID HAJI MOHAMMED.
Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1994, decided on February 21, 1994
From the Judgment and Order dated 14/17 and January 18, 1994 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 902 of 1993
Advocates appeared
K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General (A.S. Bhasme, Advocate, with him) for the Appellant;
Ram Jethmalani and G. Ramaswamy, Senior Advocates (Ms Lata Krishnamurti and A.K. Sahu, Advocates, with them) for the Respondent.
Held: It is no doubt true that in an extreme case if the only accusation against the respondent prosecuted in the Designated Court in accordance with the provisions of TADA Act is such that exfacie it cannot constitute an offence punishable under TADA Act, then the High Court may be unified in invoking the power under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that the detention of the accused is not under the provisions of TADA Act. We may hasten to add that this can happen only in extreme cases which would be rare and that power of the High Court is not exercisable in cases like the present where it may be debatable whether the direct accusation made in conjunction with the attendant circumstances, if proved to be true, is likely to result in conviction for an offence under TADA Act. The moment there is a debatable area in the case, it is not amenable the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the gamut of the procedure prescribed under TADA act must be followed, namely, raising the objection before the Designated Court and, if necessary, challenging the order of the Designated Court by appeal in the Supreme Court as provided in Section 19 of TADA Act. In view of the express provision of appeal to the Supreme Court against any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order of a Designated Court, there is no occasion for the High Court examine merits of the order made by the Designated Court that the Act applies. We have no doubt that in the present case wherein the High Court had to perform the laboured exercise of scrutinising the Inmaterial containing the accusation made against the respondents and the merits of the findings recorded by the Designated Court holding that the provisions of TADA Act were attracted, there was sufficient indication that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was not available. (Para 7)
Judgment
VERMA, J.- This appeal is by a certificate under Article 134-A of the Constitution of India granted by the Bombay High Court to appeal against its judgment dated January 18, 1994 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 902 of 1993 quashing the proceedings under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "TADA Act") against respondent Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammed on the ground that the provisions of TADA Act are not attracted to the allegations against him. In the charge-sheet dated November 4, 1993 filed in the Designated Court, Greater Bombay alleging the commission of offences punishable under the TADA Act by the 189 accused named therein, respondent Abdul Hamid is shown as accused 61. In the impugned judgment dated January 18, 1994, the High Court has held that the provisions of TADA Act are not attracted to the case against the respondent and consequently the proceedings against him before the Designated Court under the TADA Act have been quashed.
Consequently, the High Court has directed the release of the petitioner on bail on terms mentioned in its judgment.
2. The city of Bombay was rocked by a series of bomb blasts on March 12, 1993 which killed 257 persons, maimed another more than 700 persons and destroyed property worth about Rs 27 crores. These bomb blasts occurred in important Government and public sector buildings of stock exchange, Air India, Sahar International Airport, several five star hotels and busy commercial localities such as Zaveri Bazar, Katha Bazar and Century Bazar. Petrol pumps adjoining important locations were also the target of these blasts. The bomb blasts were accompanied by explosion of hand grenades in sensitive areas intended to incite communal violence which caused riot in certain areas. These incidents were a part of carefully planned strategy calculated to terrorise the Governments in the State as well as at the Centre and to incite communal violence.
3. It was during the investigation into these crimes that respondent Abdul Hamid was arrested on April 18, 1993. It is alleged that on the same day soon after his arrest, the respondent gave information which led to discovery of six Chinese AK-56 rifles and twelve magazines kept concealed in a gunny bag buried three-and-a-half feet deep in the compound of Picnic Guest House behind New Juhu Grand Hotel, Bombay, which the respondent dug out from that place and handed over to the police. It is alleged that a large number of such rifles were smuggled into the country through the Porbunder Port along with other explosives, arms and ammunition, as a part of the conspiracy to create country-wide unrest and terror of which the Bombay bomb blasts were a part. In substance, this is the allegation against the persons named as accused, including respondent Abdul Hamid, in thecharge-sheet dated November 4, 1993 filed in the Designated Court for trial of the accused persons for commission of offences under the TADA Act.
4. After arrest of the accused as aforesaid on April 18, 1993 alleging commission of offences under the TADA Act, an application for his release on bail was filed in the Designated Court on May 24, 1993. During the pendency of that bail application, the said Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 902 of 1993 was filed in the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the resort to TADA Act for prosecution of the respondent. The High Court made a direction on July 14, 1993 to the Designated Court to dispose of respondents bail application. On August 7, 1993, the Designated Court made the order rejecting respondents bail application, taking the view that the allegations against the respondent indicated prima facie the applicability of provisions of TADA Act. Thereafter on November 4, 1993, the charge-sheet was filed in the Designated Court. The High Court then heard the writ petition and by the impugned judgment dated January 18, 1994 came to the conclusion as aforesaid that the prov
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.