1996 Supreme(Raj) 82
G.N.RAY, B.L.HANSARIA
Brij Pal – Appellant
Versus
State (Delhi Administration) – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
Kirpal Singh, Advocate (A.C.), for Appellant S.N. Sikka, (B.K. Prasad) Advocate for S.N. Terdol, Advocates, for Respondent
Honble RAY, J.–This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the TADA Act). By the judgment dated 5.8.94, the learned Judge, Designated Court No.11, Delhi has convicted the appellant under Section 5 of the TADA Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years together with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. According to the prosecution case, the police received a secret information that one person of bad character who had been involved in some murder cases in U.P. was present with some unauthorised weapons at the Libaspur bus stand, Dhaula Kuan. The police thereafter organised a raiding party. They approached some public persons to become witness to search and seizure, but as no one agreed to become witness for search and seizure of such person, the police thereafter organised a raid with the help of the police officials. At about 1.30 P.M. on the day of occurrence at the Libaspur bus stand, the appellant was found and on search of his person a country made pistol loaded with one live cartridge and two oth
Click Here to Read the rest of this document