NIRANJAN SINGH KARAM SINGH PUNJABI AND ORS ETC. ETC. versus JITENDRA BHIMARAJ BIJJE AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 633 · Decided: 07-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
NIRANJAN SINGH KARAM SINGH PUNJABI AND 
ORS ETC. ETC. 
v. 
JITENDRA BHIMARAJ BIJJE AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
AUGUST 7, 1990 
[A.M. AHMADI AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: 
Section 3( 1)-Scope of-Inter-gang rivalry-Unlawful assembly-
Statement showing intena·on of accused to eliminate rivals-Murder of 
rivals with object to gain supremacy in the underworld-Held did not 
disclose the commission of an offence under Section 3( 1). 
Section 12( I) and JS-Designated Court-Power to try connected 
offences under other statutes and transfer cases to regular courts-Non-
existence of prima-facie evidence before Desi!(nated Court to frame 
charge under Section 3( i)-Consequent transfer of connectea cases 
under other statutes to regular courts-Held justified and in keeping 
with section 18. 
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 
973: Sections 227-228, 
Accused-Discharge-Determination of sufficient !(rounds for framing 
charge against the accused-Consideration of documents and records-
Scope and ambit of consideration by Trial Court. 
The accused-petitioners were charged ·under section 302 and 307 
read with Sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and 
Section 37 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Subsequently they were also 
charged under section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities 
(Prevention) Act, 1987. They moved the Designated Court for grant of 
bail contending that the provisions of the 1987 Act were wrongly and 
maliciously invoked and the Designated Court held that section 3 of the 
Act. was inapplicable. The State of Maharashtra has preferred an 
· appeal to this Court against the said order of the Designated Court. 
Since the accused were directed to approach the regular court, they 
moved bail applications before the Sessions Judge, Ahmadnagar which 
were rejected. Thereafter, they approached the High Court and during 
the pendency of their bail applications before the High Court, the pro-
secution submitted a charge-sheet against them in the Designated Court 
under section 3 of the 1987 Act. Consequently the High Court rejected 
their bail applications and the accused again approached the Designa-
ted Court for bail. The Designated Court again held that the material 
633 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
f· 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
634 
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1990] 3 S.C.R. 
placed before it and the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer 
did not disclose the commission of an offence under section 3 of the Act. 
Accordingly. it discharged the accused under section 227 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and transferred the case to court of Sessions 
for trial of other offences under the Penal Code and the Bombay Police 
Act. Against this order of the Designated Court, two appeals have been 
filed in this Court; one b)' the deceased's father and the other by the 
State. After transfer of their case to the regular court. the accused 
persons approached the High Court for bail which was rejected. The 
accused persons have tiled a Special Leave Petition in this Court against 
the High Court's order refusing the bail. 
Dismissing the appeals and disposing of the petition, this Court, 
HELD: J. A mere statement by the accused persons to the effect 
that the show of violence would create terror or fear in the minds of the 
people and none would dare to oppose them cannot constitute an offence 
under section 3(1) of the Act. That may indeed be the fall out of the 
violent act but that cannot be said to be the intention of the perpetrators 
of the crime. [646H: 647A] 
1.1 While invoking a criminal stat11te, such as the Terrorist and 
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, the prosecution is duty 
bound to show from the record of the case and the documents collected 
in the course of investigation that facts emerging therefrom prima facie 
constitute an offence within the letter of the law. [644F] 
1.2 In the instant case it is clear from the statement of the accused 
persons that thek intention was to liquidate rivals and thereby achieve 
the objective of gaining supermacy in the underworld, The consequence 
of such violence is bound to cause panic and fear but the intention of 
committing the crime cannot be said to be to strike terror in the people 
or any section of the people. Therefore, the Designated Court was fully 
justified in taking the view that this was a case of Inter-gang rivalry only 
and that the material placed on record and the doc

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