KARAN SINGH versus STATE (DELHI ADMN.)

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 405 · Decided: 10-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

KARAN SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE (DELHI ADMN.) 
OCTOBER 10, 1996 
B 
[DR. AS. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.) 
Terrorist and Disrnptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: 
S. 5-Accused found in possession of unauthorised countlymade pistol 
and three live cartridges within the notified area-Designated Court convicled C 
and sentenced him to suffer R.l. for five years-Held, accused was found in 
conscious possession of unauthorised arms and ammunition within the 
notified area-Discrepancy in statement of witness with regard to description 
of specimen of the seal utilised in sealing the case property was typographical 
erro~onviction and sentence upheld. 
D 
S. 14( 1 )--Cognizance by Designated Court of an offence under the Act, 
z.9on receiving a 'complaint of facts'-Accused sent for trial u/ss. 25/54/59. 
Arms Act-Metropolitan Magistrate, finding that the matter was triable by the 
Designated Court, referred it to Sessions Judge who transferred the case to 
Designated Court-Designated Court took cognizance of the matter on 
7.2.1991 and proceeded with the trial-Held, since the case was received by 
the Designated Court on assignment by order of Sessions Judge, the Desig-
nated Court did not take cognizance upon police report-After receipt of the 
case file from the Sessions Judge the Designated Court pernsed the maten·a1 
and prima f acie found a case u/s. 5 to have been made out-Cognizance was 
thus taken by the Designated Court on basis of complaint off acts which 
disclosed the commission of an offence u/s. 5. 
E 
F 
S. 20-A-Approval of Superintendent of Police for investigation into an 
offence under the Act and cognizance by the Court-Provisions whether G 
perspective in operation-Held, since the occurrence in the case took place 
much be/ ore the insertion of the Section in the Act, it had no application to 
the facts of the case-The Provisions of the section can have retrospective 
operation w.e.f the date the amendment came into force. 
Sanjay Dutt v. The State, (1994) S JT, 540, followed. 
405 
H 
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
553 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.3.96 of the Additional 
Sessions Court, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 56 of 1995. 
B 
Uma Datta and P.N. Gupta for the Appellant. 
c 
P.C. Choudhary, Hemant Sharma, Ashok Bhan and B.K. Prasad for 
the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Ac-
tivities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter called TADA) is directed 
against the order of the Designated Court dated 18.2.1996 by which the 
appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 5 of TADA and 
D sentenced to RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default 
to undergo RI for two months more. 
According to the prosecution case on 1.5.1988 at about 11.30 aoi. 
while ASI lnder Singh PW-3 was on patrol duty along with Head Constable 
Satbir Singh and others, he received secret information to the effect that 
E two boys were standing at the DTC bus stand at G.T. Road and had with 
them unauthorised arms and ammunitions. the police party, after unsuc-
cessfully making efforts to include some passerbyes as witnesses, arrived at 
the spot and on being pointed out by the informer, apprehended the 
appellant. The appellant had a bag with him and from search of the bag, 
F one country made pistol and three live cartridges were recovered. A sketch, 
Ex. PW2/A, of the pistol and Ex. PW2/B of the cartridges was prepared. 
The pistol and the cartridges were sealed into two separate parcels at the 
spot by PW-3 who also filled up the CFSL form and attached the specimen 
of the seal thereto.A rukka, Ex. PW3/A, was prepared and sent to the 
G police station through Constable Vijender Singh for registration of the 
case. Formal FIR Ex. PWl/A was registered. The appellant was arrested. 
On return, to the police station, the case property was deposited in the 
Malkhana. The case property was later on sent to the CFSL through Head 
Constable Jagdish Singh, PW4. According to the report of the CFSL, Ex. 
PW3/D, the pistol recovered from the appellant was found to be in working 
H order and answered to the description of an arm under the Arms Act. The 
I,
I 
KARAN SINGH v. STATE 
407 
cartridges were also found to be in live and answered the description of A 
ammunition under the Arms Act. After obtaining sanction under Section 
39 of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.