JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN all these three cases the scope of some of the provisions of the terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, hereafter called tada, and the procedure to be followed by the Courts designated under the said Act, fall for consideration. For the sake of convenience, we shall first state the facts in each case and then examine common submissions made by the learned counsel.

( 2 ) CRL. P No. 1434 of 1989: Crime No. 44 of 1989 was registered in Lingala Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 34i, 302 read with 149 I. P. C. and 3 (2) of TADA. The Inspector of Police, Pulivendala, filed the charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pulivendala, against five accused. The learned Magistrate took it on file as P. R. C. No. 5 of 1989 and committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 7-8-1989. Pending the trial of the said Sessions Case, bail applications were filed on behalf of some of the accused and A-4 and A-5 were released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, before whom the sessions case arising out of P. R. C. No. 5 of 1989 was pending. A-1 moved the high Court for bail and our learned brother Jagannadha Raju, J. by his order dated 27th March, 1989 in Crl. M. P. No. 481 of 1989 released him on bail. It was contended before learned Judge by the learned Public Prosecutor that in view of the decision, of the Supreme Court in Usmanbhai vs. State of Gujarat A. I. R. 1988 S. C. 922, the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for bail. Having gone through the decision of the supreme Court, the learned Judge however observed that the present case differs every much on facts and that as a matter of fact the charge-sheet, which mentions the offence under Section 3 (2) of TADA, was filed only before the judicial First Class Magistrate and further the definition of "terrorist" is not satisfied in the present case and granted bail. Then the remaining accused viz. , A-2 and A-3 came to this Court at a later stage and filed Crl. P. No. 1434 of 1989, tha present petition for bail, and the same came up before ouc learned brother Bhasker Rao, J. The learned Public Prosecutor once again took the objection that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for bail either under Section 439 or 482 Cr. P. C. On behalf of the accused the order of Jagannadha Raju, J. granting bail was relied upon. Our learned brother Bhaskar Rao, J. found it difficult to reject the submission of the learned Public Proseuor. However, in view of the importance of the point involved, the matter is referred to the Division bencn. That is how this application is before us.

( 3 ) SRI Kolanda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that TADA is more or less a self-contained Act and under Section 14 the designated Court alone has got jutisdiction to take cognizance of the case and in the instant case, though the learned Additional sessions Judge is also a designated Court, he did not lake cognizance as contemplated under the provisions of TADA. On the other hand the case was investigated, processed and chaige sheeted and filed into the Court of the Judicial first Class Magistrate. 1 he learned Magistrate committed it under Section 209 Cr. P. C. Taw is how the Additional Sessions Judge got jurisdiction to try this case ana not under the provisions of TADA, therefore, the Court of the Additional Sessions judge comes within the meaning of a criminal court, which is amenable to appellate, leviaional as well as inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

( 4 ) CRL. P. No. 1405/89 : This is an application filed to quash the proceedings in P. R. C. No. 32 of 1989 on the tile of the Judicial First Class magistrate, Nalgonda. On 10-7-1987 at about 10. p. m. when the complainant in the case, Anantha Reddy was sleeping in his house, it is alleged that about twelve miscreants entered the house armed with lethal reapons thereatened the immates and took away ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document