S.K. SHUKLA AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 172 · Decided: 10-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
S.K. SHUKLA AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS .. 
NOVEMBER I 0, 2005 
B 
[B.N. AGRAWAL AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Criminal Law 
Prevention of Terrorism Act,' 2002-Section 3, 4(a)-Genera/ Clauses 
C Act-Arms Act, 1959-Sch./ category (1), 3(a)-Possession of arms and 
ammunition in a notified area-Notification though communicated on 
23. 1.2003, published in Gazette on 29. 1.2003-Held, date of publication 
relevant-Further Held publication essential as it affects the rights of public-
Notification comes into effect from the date when it was published in the · 
D official gazette. 
POTA, 2002-Section 4(b), Section 60-Review Committee-Recovery 
of unauthorized possession of explosive substance and lethal weapons capable 
of mass destruction-Forensic Lab report showing presence of explosive 
'\ 
substances-Held, mere possession is an offence-Further Held, order of 
E Review Committee holding that no offe.nce made out incorrect-Further Held, 
powers of Review. Committee limited to see whether prima facie case made 
out against accused 
F 
Words and Phrases- "lethal weapon" "hazardous substance"-
Meaning of 
Cr.P.C.-Section 321-Duty of Public Prosecutor-Withdrawal from 
prosecution-Held, public prosecutor has to act objectively and need not act 
on the dictate of the State Governments. 
· 
Inspector In-charge, P.S. Kotwali Kunda along with informant and 
G other police officials raided the house of 'U' for execution of warrant of 
arrest under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act. They entered through main 
gate and went inside the Raj Mahal premises where they found 'K' an 
advocate, who told them that he is an advocate for civil cases. They found 
'U' present in Raj Mahal where he was standing with on piece of AK 56 
H 
172 
) 
S.K. SHUKLAv. STATE OF U.P. 
173 
rifle with black colour belt hanging on his right shoulder and the weapon A 
was in perfect condition and on his shoulder there was a bag with three 
pieces of magazines of AK 56 rifle. After unloading the AK 56 rifle with 
36 bullets, he was asked to produce the licence, he could not show anything. 
When they entered into his bedroom they Mund ammunition, a square 
wooden box yellow colored polythene bag which contained in it about 200 B 
gms of explosive chips and in grey colour polythene bag there was some 
suspicious black power. In a while cotton bag there was blue colour 
polythene which contained nearabout 400 gms suspicious brown colour 
powder. The mango gardens of 'U' were raided from two clues. On the 
western direction of the Raj Mahal Bhadri, at 200 mtrs from the western 
wall at the mango gardens of 'U' they discovered three polythene green C 
bags containing guns and other weapons. 
An order under POTA was passed against all the three accused 
namely, 'R', 'U' and 'A' by the State Government. All this recovery of 
arms, ammunition and other weapons were detailed in the order. It was 
also disclosed that a conspiracy was hatched by 'U' to cause a massacre D 
and/or to create terror after killing some VIPs. In this order it was 
mentioned that statement of one witness was recorded wherein he stated 
that all the accused have brought AK-47 (56) rifle and given it to 'U'. It 
was also alleged that after this statement he was murdered and the father 
of the deceased filed an FIR; that they propose to take some action against E 
Chief Minister; that the said AK-56 rifle was brought by 'R' in presence 
of' A' and was given to 'U'. On the basis of this, State Government granted 
permission to launch prosecution under Section 50 of the POT A Act to 
prosecute the accused persons under Sections 3(2), 3(3), 3(7) and 4 of 
POTA. After this order was passed by the State Government against the 
accused persons political events took a turn. A new Government came in F 
power. This new Government revoked the order and withdrew the 
prosecutor. This order was challenged by the petitioner in the Writ 
Petition. 
The accused also filed a review petition under Section 60 of POT A 
before the Review Committee appointed under the POT A Act and a G 
petition before the Central Government. The Review Committee reviewed 
the matter and held that since there is no case against the applicants under 
the POT A and no prima facie case is found under Sections 3 and 4 of the 
POT A Act, there is no basis for proceeding against accused under POT A 
and the State of U.P. was directed to release all the three applicants. Before H 
174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A this or

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