PARAS RAM versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 55 · Decided: 20-10-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

PARAS RAM 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
OCTOBER 20, 1992 
[J.S. VERMA AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
Te"orist and Disrnptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: 
Sections 5, 12-0ffence under Section 25 of the Anns Act-Conviction 
under Section 12 of the T.DA. Act by Designated Court-l..ega/ity-Sen-
tence-Modification of 
Anns Act, 1959: 
Section 25(1B)(a}-Offence under-conviction by Designated Court 
u/s. 12 of the T.DA. Act-Legality of-Sentence-Modification of 
Interpretation of Statutes-Terrorist and Disrnptive Activities (Preven-
tion) Act, 1987-Section ~'Anns and ammunition''-Construction. 
On 7.4. 1988, the Police apprehended the appellant on the G.T. Road 
on suspicion, and he was found carrying a 12 bore country-made pistol 
without licence or permit. 
The District Magistrate issued sanction for prosecuting the appel-
lant for an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 
The Judicial Magistrate, First Class ordered that as the case should 
be tried by the Designated Court under Section 5 of the Terrorist and 
Distruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The case was transferred to 
the Additional Judge, the Designated Court, for Trial, charging the appel-
lant for the offence punishable under Section S of the T.A.D.A. Act, 1987. 
The appellant pleaded not guilty. 
The Designated Judge found that the prosecution had brought home 
the offence to the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant 
was convicted of an offence punishable under Section S of the T .A.D.A. Act 
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay 
a line of Rs. 200 or, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a 
further period of three months. 
55 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
56 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Against the judgment and order of the Designated Court, the 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
present appeal was flied. 
The appellant contended that the prosecution itself did not consider 
the case against him to be a 11¢ case to frame a charge and proceed under 
the T .A.D.A. Act, 1987 and that it was, therefore, not proper to try and 
convict thereunder; that a country-made pistol fell outside the ambit of the 
Category III (a), of Schedule l to the Arms Rules, 1962; that Section 5 of 
the T .A.D.A. Act, 1987 applied only when a person was in possession of 
"arms and ammunition" and that the provisions of Section 5 of the T.A. 
D.A. Act did not apply to the appellant. 
The respondent-Slate >ubmitted that the prosecution had con-
sidered the case to be a fit case to frame a charge and proceed against the 
appellant under Section 5 of the T .A.D.A. Act, 1987 and had requested the 
Magistmte to tmnsfer the casl! to the Designated Court for trial. 
Modifying the sent•nce, this Court, 
HELD : 1.01. Section 12 of the T .A.D.A. Act, 1987 empowers the 
Designated Court to con·vict a person of any offence under any other law 
if he is found to have IJet,n guilty of the same during the course of a trial 
under that Act and to punish appropriately. [60-E] 
Ja/oba v. State of Haryana, [1989) SCC Supple. II 197, followed. 
1.02. Upon the authority of the judgment infaloba's case, the appel-
lant was rightly tried by the Designated Court under the provisions of the 
T.A.D.A. Act, 1987. [59-E] 
1.03. That the evidl!nce relied upon was of two police officials does 
not ipso facto give rise to doubt about its credibility. On examination of 
the evidence no reason was found to question the conclusion of the Desig-
nated Court that the appellant was guilty. [60-G-F) 
1.04. The appellant, being guilty of an offence under Section 
25(1B)(a) of the Arms Ao:!, is punishable with imprisonment for a term 
whii:;1 shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years 
and he is also liable to fine. In l:he circumstances of the case the appellant 
must undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and pay a fine 
H of Rs. 200. [60-H, 60-A] 
' 
-
PARAS RAM v. STATE OF HARYANA [BHARUCHA, J.] 
57 
2.01. The words "arms and ammunition" in Section 5 of the Terrorist A 
and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 should be read conjuc· 
lively. This is not merely a matter of correct grammar but also subserves 
the object of the Act. (60-C] 
2.02. A person in possession of both a firearm and the ammunition 
therefor is capable of terrorist and disruptive activities but not one who B 
has a firearm but not the ammunition for it or vice versa. (60-D] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
341of1990. 
F

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