1. Appeal against conviction and sentencing under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 460
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand, S.C. Agarwal
JOGINDER SINGH, APPELLANT
Versus
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION), RESPONDENT.
Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 1994, decided on April 19, 1994.
Important Points
The interpretation of Section 5 of TADA raised a significant question that required consideration by a three-Judge Bench.
Subject
Criminal Law - Terrorism
Act Referred
Headnote
TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1987 - Section 5 - Interpretation of Section 5 of TADA
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 5 of TADA and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The appellant challenged the conviction citing a previous judgment's interpretation of Section 5.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the interpretation of Section 5 of TADA by R. M. Sahai, J. in a previous case raised a significant question, and it should be considered by a three-Judge Bench of the Court.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 5 of TADA and the need for a three-Judge Bench to consider the question raised.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the interpretation of Section 5 of TADA by R. M. Sahai, J. in a previous case raised an important question that required consideration by a three-Judge Bench.
Final Decision: The matter was referred to the Chief Justice of India for suitable directions and the parties were given liberty to mention for a date of hearing of the appeal.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
K.B.Andley, Rajinder Mathur
K.B.Andley, Rajinder Mathur
Table of Contents
2. Conviction is unsustainable if Section 5 requires evidence that arms were likely to be used for terrorist or disruptive activities. (Para 1 )
3. A single judge's view in a Constitution Bench decision may not represent the judgment of the entire Bench regarding the scope of Section 5, TADA. (Para 1 )
4. The interpretation and scope of Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, requires determination by a three-Judge Bench. (Para 1 )
5. Matter referred to the Chief Justice of India for directions to be heard by a three-Judge Bench. (Para 1 , 2 )
6. Does a view expressed by a single judge in a Constitution Bench decision necessarily constitute the judgment of that Bench?
The court noted that if only one judge expresses an opinion on a specific provision while others do not, the status of that view as the judgment of the Constitution Bench must be determined. (Para 1 )
7. What is the legal controversy regarding the invocation of Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987?
The controversy is whether the prosecution must establish that arms and ammunition were likely to be used for, or had been used for, terrorist or disruptive activities to invoke Section 5. (Para 1 )
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Designated Court, Delhi, whereby the appellant who was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short TADA) has been convicted of the said offence and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five yeas and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another two months. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained in view of the decision of this Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab. In the said case R. M. Sahai, J. has construed Section 5 of TADA and has expressed his view in the following terms : (SCC pp. 766-67, para 460)
"(2) Even though no opinion has been expressed by Brother Pandian, J., on Section 5 I am of the opinion that the provisions of this section can be invoked only when the prosecution is able to establish that there was some material on record to show that the arms and ammunition mentioned in the section were likely to be used for any terrorist or disruptive activity or that they had been used as such."
It appears that the other four Judges who constituted the Bench which decided the said case, have not expressed any opinion on the construction of Section 5 of TADA. The question is whether the aforesaid view of Sahai, J. on interpretation of Section 5 of TADA is to be regarded as the judgment of the Constitution Bench; if not, what is the true ambit and scope of Section 5 of TADA. Having regard to the importance of the question which arises in a large number of cases, we are of the view that it would be appropriate that this question is considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court.
2. The matter be placed before Honble the Chief Justice of India for suitable directions in this regard.
3. Liberty is given to the parties to mention for a date of hearing of the appeal.
