GURMAIL SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 518 · Decided: 18-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GURMAIL SINGH 
v. 
ST A TE OF PUNJAB 
MARCH 18, 2002 
B 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
Criminal Law: 
Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Section 5-
C Ingredients of offence punishable thereunder-Allegation that accused found 
carrying a bag containing explosives on his head a/ongwith four detonators-
Constables inspired accused to surrender and brought him before the Officer 
at the Police Station-Accused carried the explosives in the same manner in 
the Police Station itself-Report of expert and evidence of Police Officials-
D Designated Court convicted accused on the basis of statutory presumption 
under Section 5 of the Act-Whether conviction justified-Held, such conviction 
is erroneous since Designated Court found case made out by prosecution 
improbable-A/so reliance on the evidence of police officials is misplaced due 
to absence of police constables, who inspired the accused to surrender. 
E 
F 
It is alleged that appellant-accused was found carrying o·ne bag on his 
head along with four detonators on his right hand. Constables inspired the 
accused to surrender and brought him before the police official at the Police 
Station. Accused carried the bag and detonators in the same manner in the 
Police Station itself. On search, bag was found to contain explosive material. 
Then on basis of formalities carried out, appellant-accused was charged under 
Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987. Designated 
Court then convicted the appellant-accused under the Act. Hence the present 
appeal. 
· The issue that arises for consideration is whether the factual background 
G as suggested by the prosecution can in fact take place ever or the same stands 
granted to rope in the accused person. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act 
H are rather drastic and have been introduced in the Statute Book only to 
518 
t
~····
~ 
)-
~ 
>-;-
,___
>---
r-
i 
I. 
i ' 
~-
GURMAIL SINGH v. STA TE OF PUNJAB 
519 
;· combat the situation which the existing state of the law may not be able to A 
achieve. Exercise of powers under TADA Act cannot possibly he taken 
recourse to as a matter of course. The invocation is not available on ordinary 
situation but to meet' only a situation which cannot but be ascribed to be extra-
ordinary and by reason of the felt need of the society. Unfortunately it is a 
serious in-road to the liberty of an individual, but having regard to betterment B 
of the society and upliftment of social strata the authority to take recourse to 
the legislation stands approved by the few courts inspite of the same being 
very stringent in nature. It however, ought always to be thus of very limited 
in applications. [524-D-E; F-GJ 
2.1. In the instant case Designated Court's entire emphasis seem to be C 
~. 
_on the report of the expert and the evidence of the police officials and 
prosecution witnesses which is said to have proved that the accused possessed 
' 
an explosive material in violation of Section 5 of Terrorist and Disruptive 
Activities Act. Designated Court does not rule out the improbability of the 
prosecution and ascribes it to be a story which looked improbable and upon 
recording of such a finding it is a matter of great significance that the D 
Designated Judge hold' the accused guilty of the offence under Section 5 of 
the Act. In the event, the case made out by the prosecution is improbable, 
where however, is the scope for introduction of Section 5 of the Act-it is 
difficult to appreciate. [522-D-FJ 
2.2. The absurdity of the situation, though recorded by the Designated E 
Court, but obviously being overawed by the pHsence of the two police officials 
in Court, as otherwise there is no rhyme nor any reason to rely on the 
evidence, far less to convict the accused, for rigorous imprisonment in terms 
of the Statute. [524-G-HJ 
2.3. Both on facts and on law and on perusal of the relevant evidence 
on record, it is expedient to record that the reliance on the evidence of police 
officials is w_holly misplaced since the available evidence does not warrant any 
credence more so by reason of the absence of two police constables who, it 
has been stated to be true inspiration for the two accused persons to surrender 
F 
and thus the consequent conviction under section 5 of the TADA Act is G 
manifestly erroneous and liable to the set aside. [525-A-BJ 
Sanjay Dutt v. State thro

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.