PULIN DAS @ PANNA KOCH versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 257 · Decided: 22-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.P. NAOLEKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 257 
PULIN DAS @ PANNA KOCH 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM 
(Criminal Appeal No: 706 of 2007) 
FEBRUARY 22, 2008 
[P.P. NAOLEKAR AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: 
A 
B 
ss. 3 (1) and 2 (ii) - Prosecution under - Police raid -
Apprehension of accused -
Recovery of arms and C 
ammunitions - Conviction by designated court - On appeal, 
held: Conviction not sustainable - Prosecution witnesses 
including the police personnel not mentioning about the 
banned organization, link of the accused therewith and unlawful 
activities of the accused. 
D 
s. 3 (1) - Applicability of - Circumstances discussed. 
Appellants-accused were prosecuted u/ss. 3 and 5 
of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 
1987. According to prosecution, police party raided the E 
house of PW-5. There was exchange of firing from both 
the sides. Thereafter both the appellants were 
apprehended. Arms and ammunitions were also 
recovered from their possession. FIR was lodged on that 
basis u/ss. 3/4/5 of the Act. Charges were framed. 
F 
Designated court convicted both the accused u/s 3 (1) 
and u/s 3 (2) (ii). However, acquitted them u/s 5 of the Act. 
Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is clear from Section 3(1) of Terrorist and 
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 that whoever 
with intent (i) to overawe the Government as by law 
e~tablished; or (ii) to strike terror in the people or any 
257 
G 
H 
258 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A section of the people; or (iii) to alienate any section of the 
people; or (iv) to adversely affect the harmony amongst 
different sections of the people, does any act or things 
by using (a) bombs or dynamite, or (b) other explosive 
substances, or (c) inflammable substances, or (d) firearms, 
8 or (e) other lethal weapons, or (f) poisons or noxious 
gases or other chemicals, or (g) any other substances 
(whether biological or otherwise) of a hazardous nature 
in such a manner as to cause or as is likely to cause (i) 
death, or (ii) injuries to any person or persons, (iii) loss of 
c or damage to or destruction of !Ji.?perty, or (iv) disruption 
of any supplies or services essential to the life of the 
community, or (v) detains any person and threatens to 
kill or injure such person in order to compel the 
Government or any other person to do or abstain from 
0 doing any act, commits a 'terrorist act' punishable under 
the said Section. [Para 8] [267-D, E, F, G] 
Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab 1994 (3) SCC 569 -
followed. 
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. vs. State of 
E Maharashtra and Ors. 1994 (4) SCC 602; State through 
Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT vs. Nalini and Ors. 1999 
(5) sec 253 - relied on. 
Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon and Ors. vs. State of 
F Gujarat 1988 (2) SCC 271; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh 
Punjabi, Advocate vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya and Ors., 1990 
(4) sec 76 - referred to. 
1.2 An activity which is sought to be punished under 
Section 3(1) of TADA has to be such which cannot be 
G classified as a mere law and order problem or disturbance 
of public order or disturbance of even tempo of the life of 
the community of any specified locality but is of the nature 
which cannot be tackled as an ordinary criminal activity 
under the ordinary penal law by the normal law 
H enforcement agencies because the intended extent and 
'-. 
PULIN DAS @ PANNA KOCH v. STATE OF ASSAM 
259 
reach of the criminal activity of the 'terrorist' is such which A 
travels beyond the gravity of the mere disturbance of 
public order even of a 'virulent nature' and may at times 
transcend the frontiers of the locality and may include 
such anti-national activities which throw a challenge to 
the very integrity and sovereignty of the country in its B 
democratic polity. The Designated Court must not act 
mechanically and record conviction without examining 
whether or not from the evidence led by the prosecution 
an offence under Section 3 (1) is made out. [Para 9) 
[267-H; 268-A, B, CJ 
c 
1.3 In the facts of the case and in light of strict 
compliance to be followed to attract Section 3(1), the 
conviction under Section 3(1) and punishment under sub-
section 2(ii) of Section 3 of the TADA Act cannot be 
sustained. The prosecution has miserably failed to D 
establish the charge levelled against both the accused. 
The Designated Court has committed an error in accepting 
the prosecution case bas

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