Joginder
Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) [1994] INSC 245 (19 April 1994)
Agrawal, S.C. (J) Agrawal, S.C. (J) Anand, A.S. (J)
CITATION:
1994 SCC (4) 724
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
ORDER
1.This
appeal is directed against the judgment of the Designated Court, Delhi, whereby
the appellant who was charged with having committed an offence punishable under
Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
(for short TADA) has been convicted of the said offence and has been sentenced
to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs
1000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
another two months. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained in view of the decision of
this Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab'. In the said case R.M. Sahai, J.
has construed Section 5 of TADA and has expressed his view in the following terms
: (SCC pp. 766-67, para 460) "(2) Even though no opinion has been
expressed by Brother Pandian, J., on Section 51 am of the opinion that the
provisions of this section can be invoked only when the prosecution is able to
establish that there was some material on record to show that the arms and
ammunition mentioned in the section were likely to be used for any terrorist or
disruptive activity or that they had been used as such." It appears that
the other four Judges who constituted the Bench which decided the said case,
have not expressed any opinion on the construction of Section 5 of TADA. The
question is whether the aforesaid view of Sahai, J. on interpretation of
Section 5 of TADA is to be regarded as the judgment of he Constitution Bench;
if not, what is the true ambit and scope of Section 5 TADA. Having regard to
the importance of the question which arises in a arge number of cases, we are
of the view that it would be appropriate that is question is considered by a
three-Judge Bench of this Court.
2.The
matter may be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for suitable
directions in this regard.
3.Liberty is given to the parties to mention
for a date of hearing of the appeal.
Back
