Back
1986 Supreme(P&H) 285
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.S.Tiwana and Pritpal Singh JJ.
Gurdial Singh
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Revision No. 613 of 1986,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 12, 1986
The Designated Court has exclusive jurisdiction to try offences under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, including offences under the Arms Act committed in areas notified by the State Government.
Headnote:
TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1985 - SECTIONS 6, 9, 10 - ARMS ACT, 1959 - SECTION 25 - PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTIONS 307, 323, 34 - JURISDICTION OF DESIGNATED COURT - OFFENCES UNDER ARMS ACT COMMITTED IN NOTIFIED AREA - PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE ACT - DESIGNATED COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO TRY SUCH OFFENCES - OFFENCES UNDER PENAL CODE NOT CONNECTED WITH OFFENCES UNDER ARMS ACT - DESIGNATED COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO TRY SUCH OFFENCES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were charged with offences under Sections 307 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, and separately, the petitioner Gurmukh Singh was charged with an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The trial court transferred both cases to the Designated Court constituted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (the Act). The petitioners challenged the transfer, arguing that the Designated Court lacked jurisdiction to try the cases.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Designated Court had jurisdiction to try the case under Section 25 of the Arms Act because the offence was committed in an area notified by the State Government and was therefore punishable under Section 6 of the Act. However, the High Court held that the Designated Court did not have jurisdiction to try the case under the Penal Code because the offences were not connected with the offence under the Arms Act and therefore Section 10(1) of the Act, which empowers the Designated Court to try other offences connected with an offence exclusively triable by it, was not attracted.
Issues: 1. Whether the Designated Court had jurisdiction to try the case under Section 25 of the Arms Act? 2. Whether the Designated Court had jurisdiction to try the case under the Penal Code?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 6 of the Act provides that any person who contravenes any provision of the Arms Act in an area notified by the State Government shall be punishable under Section 6, notwithstanding anything contained in the Arms Act or the rules made thereunder. Section 9(1) of the Act provides that every offence punishable under any provision of the Act or any rule made thereunder shall be triable only by the Designated Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 2. Section 10(1) of the Act empowers the Designated Court to try any other offence with which the accused may be charged at the same trial if the offence is connected with such other offence. However, in the present case, the offences under the Penal Code were not connected with the offence under the Arms Act and therefore Section 10(1) was not attracted.
Final Decision: The High Court partly quashed the trial court's order transferring the cases to the Designated Court. The case under the Arms Act was to be tried by the Designated Court, while the case under the Penal Code was to be tried by the Additional Sessions Judge.
PRITPAL SINGH, J.
1. The petitioners Gurdial Singh and Gurmukh Singh were committed to the Court of Session for trial under Ss.307 and 323 read with S.34, Penal Code. The trial commenced in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar. Appropriate charges were framed and part of prosecution evidence was recorded.
2. The petitioner Gurmukh Singh was separately prosecuted under S.25 of the Arms Act on the allegation that when he was arrested in the main case he was found to be in possession of a single-barrelled gun, the licence regarding which had expired earlier and had not been renewed. This case was also being tried in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar.
3. When a part of the evidence was recorded on April 16, 1986 in the case under Ss. 307 and 323 read with S.34, Penal Code an application was moved on behalf of the prosecution that the case along with the other case under S.25 of the Arms Act be transferred to the Designated Court constituted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the Act). The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application and forwarded both the cases to the Designated Court, Bhiwani, vide an order of the same date.
4. The petitioners filed the instant revision petition against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, transferring the, cases to the Designated Court on the plea that these cases are exclusively triable by the Court of Session and the Designated Court has no jurisdiction to try the same. The learned single Judge of this Court, who heard the revision petition, referred the petition to be decided by a larger Bench considering the importance of the point involved therein. It is in these circumstances that we are now seized of the matter.
5. We will first deal with the case under the Arms Act. It is contended by the petitioners learned counsel that this case does not come within the ambit of the Act and so it could not be sent to the Designated Court for trial. We are unable to uphold this contention. The preamble of the Act shows that it was enacted to make special provisions for the prevention of, and for coping with, terrorist and disruptive activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The second part of the Act deals with the punishments for, and measures for coping with, terrorist and disruptive activities. This part consists of Ss. 3 to 6. As to what is a terrorist act is defined in sub-s. (1) of S.3. It says that "whoever with intent to overawe the Government as by law established or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people or to alienate any section of the people or to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people does any act or thing by using bombs dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or fire-arms or other lethal weapons or poisons or noxious gases or other chemical or, any other substances (whether biological or otherwise) of a hazardous nature in such a manner as to cause, or as is likely to cause, death of, or injuries to, any person or persons or damage to, or destruction of, property or disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community, commits a terrorist act." Sub-s. (2) prescribes punishment for the committing of a terrorist act. Sub-s. (3) lays down punishment to be awarded to the person who conspires or attempts to commit a terrorist act.
6. Sub-see. (2) of S.4 defines the term "disruptive activity" as follows : -
"for the purposes of sub-sec. (1), "disruptive activity" means any action taken, whether by act or by speech or through any other media or in any other manner whatsoever :-
(i) which questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt, whether directly or indirectly, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India; or
(ii) which is intended to bring about or supports any claim, whether directly or indirectly, for the cession of any
