JUDGMENT

G. P. MATHUR, J.—

1.This Appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2007 of Designated Court, Kapurthala at Jalandhar in TADA Sessions Case No. 4 of 2006 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and has been sentenced to 5 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.3.1992 Kamaljit Singh, SHO, Santokh Singh, SI and some other police personnel were going from village Kukar Pind to village Raipur in connection with investigation of a case bearing FIR No. 31 under Section 302/34 IPC, Section 25 Arms Act and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘TADA’). When they reached on Byen Bridge in village Kukar Pind, they saw a person coming on foot. On seeing the police party he tried to run away but he was apprehended after a chase and on inquiry he disclosed his name as Harpal Singh (appellant in this appeal). On his personal search explosive powder wrapped in a glazed paper was recovered from the “jhola” (bag) which he was having in his right hand. The bag contained one kilogram explosive powder which was taken into possession. A ruka was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered against the appellant.

3.After investigation and receipt of the sanction and report of the Forensic Science Laboratory charge-sheet was submitted in the court on 24.2.1994 for prosecution of the appellant under Sections 4, 5, and 9B(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884. There was no mention of any offence under TADA or under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The charge-sheet was submitted in the Designated Court which took cognizance of the offence and proceeded with the trial of the appellant. Ultimately the Designated Court acquitted the appellant for the offences under TADA and the Explosives Act, 1884, but convicted him only under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced him to 5 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-.

4.Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the case against the appellant is not established from the evidence adduced by the prosecution but instead of going into the facts and appraisal of evidence the appeal can be allowed on a legal ground.

5.Part III of TADA deals with Designated Courts. Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of TADA provides that the Central Government or a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Designated Courts for such area or areas, or for such case or class or group of case as may be specified in the notification. Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of TADA lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, every offence punishable under any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall be triable only by the Designated Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed or, as the case may be, by the Designated Court constituted for trying such offence under sub-section (1) of Section 9. Sections 12 and 18 of TADA read as under:

“12.Power of Designated Courts with respect to other offences. —

(1)When trying any offence, a Designated Court may also try any other offence with which the accused may, under the Code, be charged at the same trial if the offence is connected with such other offence.

(2)If, in the course of any trial under this Act, of any offence, it is found that the accused person has committed any other offence under this Act or any rule made thereunder or under any other law, the Designated Court may convict such person of such other offence and pass any sentence authorised by this Act or such rule or, as the case may be, such other law, for the punishment thereof.”

“18.Power to transfer cases to regular courts. —

Where, after taking cognizance of any off