2007 Supreme(SC) 1334

2007(8) Supreme 250
Supreme Court of india
(From Designated TADA Court)
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
State of Rajasthan — Petitioner
versus
Ajit Singh & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (crl.) 732 of 2001
Decided on : 12-10-2007

important point
Section 3(3) of the TADA Act, 1987 would be applicable only if the accused “knowingly” facilitated the commission of a terrorist act or any act preparatory to a terrorist act.

Headnote:(a)Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 – Sections 3(3) and 4(1) – While upholding the constitutional validity of the Act, Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines in applying the statute to individual cases – It has therefore to be seen at the very initial stage as to whether the case would fall within the mischief of sections 3(3) and 4(1) of the Act. (Para 6)

       1994 (3) SCC 569 – Relied upon.

       (b)Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 – Sections 3(3) and 4(1) –Section 3(3) would be applicable only if the accused “knowingly” facilitated the commission of a terrorist act or any act preparatory to a terrorist act – Except the confession of Ajit Singh confessions of none of the other accused showed or betrayed any knowledge that the weapons had been smuggled in for use in terrorist activity – Designated court therefore rightly concluded that the confessional statement of Ajit Singh incriminated him alone in terrorist activities and that there was no evidence against any of the other accused. (Para 7)

       (c)Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 – Section 15 – Section 15 is a clear departure from the general law that a statement made to a police officer is not permissible in evidence. (Para 10)

       (2003) 9 SCC 673 – Relied upon.

       (d)Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 – Section 15 – In case the recording officer of the confessional statement on administering the statutory warning to the accused forms a belief that the accused should be granted some time to think over the matter, it becomes obligatory on him to grant reasonable time for the purpose to the accused. The recording officer may straightway proceed to record the confessional statement without granting any time but if he thinks it appropriate to grant time, it cannot be a mechanical exercise for completing a formality. (Para 13)

       AIR 1957 SC 637 – Relied upon.

       (e)Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 – Section 15 r/w Rule 15(5), Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987 – All the accused being in police custody for almost 45 days before recording the confessions, adequate time had not been given to any of them – Further, there being no evidence on record to suggest that the procedure u/r 15(5) has been complied with, the confessions cannot be taken into account for any purpose. (Para 14)

       (f)Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 – Section 21(1) – Section 21(1) providing for presumption in favour of the prosecution would be applicable only if it is “proved” that the arms and ammunition had been recovered from the accused and had been used in the manner laid down in section 3 – There is no evidence to show a recovery of weapons or that any of the accused (other than Ajit Singh) had any knowledge as to the ultimate destination and end use of the weapons that had been brought in – The presumption therefore under section 21(2) could not be raised in the present case. (Para 18)

       (2005)11 SCC 600 – Relied upon.

       (2003) 9 SCC 673 – Distinguished.

       Facts of the case :

       1.At about 10 a.m. on 12th August 1991 PW7 Hira Lal along with PW9 Sada Nand, Narender Soni, Inspector Customs and several other officers of the department were on patrol duty on the Indo Pakistan Border in Jaisalmer district of Rajasthan. As they reached village Avaya, a Jonga bearing No. RSS 3479 which was coming from the opposite direction was stopped by them as some suspicions had been raised. On enquiry it transpired that the vehicle driver was Shri Ram Vishnoi and the passenger was Ajit Singh @ Jeeta who disclosed that they were returning from the house of Mehardeen son of Allabachaya, a resident of village Avaya, who with the assistance of one Abdul Aziz, had on several occasions brought arms and ammunition from Pakistan for transportation to Punjab so as to further the terrorist effort towards the creation of Khalistan. Abdul Aziz aforesaid was also interrogated and he confirmed Ajit Singh’s statement.

       2.Camels and vehicles allegedly used in the smuggling as also a AK-56 rifle and two magazines with 44 cartridges were recovered. Accused Sujia and Danu Ram were discharged whereas Laldeen was declared an absconder and Noordeen died during the course of the trial.

       3.The other accused were accordingly charged under Sections 3(3) & 4(1) of the TADA Act whereas some of the accused were charged in addition for offences punishable under the Arms Act and the Passport Act.

       4.The trial court acquitted all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3(3) and 4(1) of the TADA Act and under the Arms Act and only Ajit Singh was convicted for having violated the Passport Rules.

       Findings of the Court :

       The confessions of the other accused persons cannot be taken into account for any purpose.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.