(1) THIS appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter called TADA) is directed against the order of the Designated court dated 28/2/1996 by which the appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 5 of TADA and sentenced to Rl for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and in default to undergo Rl for two months more.

(2) ACCORDING to the prosecution case on 1/5/1988 at about 11.30 a.m. while ASI Inder Singh Public Witness 3 was on patrol duty along with Head Constable Satbir Singh and others, he received secret information to the effect that two boys were standing at the DTC bus-stand at G.T. Road and had with them unauthorised arms and ammunition. The police party, after unsuccessfully making efforts to include some passers-by as witnesses, arrived at the spot and on being pointed out by the informer, apprehended the appellant. The appellant had a bag with him and from search of the bag. one country-made pistol and three live cartridges were recovered. A sketch. Ex. Public Witness 2-A, of the pistol and Ex. Public Witness 2-B of the cartridges was prepared. The pistol and the cartridges were sealed into two separate parcels at the spot by Public Witness 3 who also filled up the CFSL form and attached the specimen of the seal thereto. A rukka, Ex. Public Witness 3-A, was prepared and sent to the police station through Constable Vijender Singh for registration of the case. Formal FIR Ex. Public Witness 1-A was registered. The appellant was arrested. On return, to the police station, the case property was deposited in the Malkhana. The case property was later on sent to the CFSL through Head Constable Jagdish Singh, Public Witness 4. According to the report of the CFSL, Ex. Public Witness 3-D, the pistol recovered from the appellant was found to be in working order and answered to the description of an arm under the Arms Act. The cartridges were also found to be live and answered the description of ammunition under the Arms Act. After obtaining sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act, the appellant was sent up for trial in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate for offences under S. 25/54/59 Arms Act. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate framed charges against the appellant on 23/1/1991. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. While the matter rested thus, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate realised that the case was triable by a Designated court and the matter was referred to the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge, on 7/2/1991, transferred the case to Shri B.N. Chaturvedi, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, Presiding Officer of the Designated court. At the trial before the Designated court, the prosecution examined four witnesses and produced certain documents on the record, including the report of the CFSL Ex. Public Witness 3-D. The learned Designated court took judicial notice of the notification dated 20/10/1987 and by the order impugned herein, convicted and sentenced the appellant after finding that the prosecution had successfully established the case against the appellant.

(3) MR Uma Datta, learned counsel for the appellant, firstly argued that the Designated court could not have taken cognizance of the case merely on the case being transferred to it by the Sessions Judge by his order dated 7/2/1991 and that even otherwise cognizance was taken by the Designated court on 7/2/19911 without any application of mind only on the case being assigned to it. For what follows, there is no merit in this argument.

(4) SECTION 14(1 of TADA inter alia provides that a Designated court may take cognizance of an offence, upon (i) receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, or (ii) upon a police report of such facts.

(5) SINCE, the case was received by the Designated court on assignment by order of the Sessions Judge dated 7/2/1991. the Designated court did not take cognizance upon a police report. Did