LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus ABDUL HAMID HAJI MOHAMMED
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. ABDUL HAMID HAJI MOHAMMED FEBRUARY 21, 1994 B [KULDIP SINGH AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.] Constihttion of India, 1950: Article 226-Proceedings before Designated Court under TADA Act-Quashing of-High Court's jurisdiction-Held, power of High Corm is not exercisable where it may be debatable whether C cccusation made with attendant circumstances, if proved to be true, is likely to result in conviction for an offe11ce under TADA Act. Terrorist and Disntptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(h), 3, 5, 6, 19-'TerroiistAct', 'Disruptive activity'--Bomb blasts D in series i11 Bombay-Investigation int<r-Arrest of respondent-Recovery of 6 Chinese AK-56 rifles and 12 empty magazines at the instance of respon- dent-Refusal of bail by Designated Coult holding that provisio11s of Act prima facie were attracted-Charge-sheet filed in Designated C<!~lt showing respondent as one of several accused-High Coult in writ jurisdiction examin- ing matter on merits and quashed proceedings before Designated Cc:.;lt E holding that provisions of TADA Act were not attracted to respondent's case-Held, in view of apress provision of appeal to Supreme Coult agai11st any judgment, se11tence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Designated Coult, there is no occasion for High Coult to examine merits of order of Designated Coult taking cognizance under the Act. " The respondent was arrested under the provisions or Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 during the investigation into the crimes relating to the series or bomb blasts in the city or Bombay on 12.3.1993. Six Chinese AK-56 rifles and 12 empty magazines were recovered ~ at the instance or the respondent. An application for his release on bail J was filed in the Designated Court. Meanwhile a writ petition was also filed in the High Court challenging the prosecution of the respondent under the TADA Act. The High Court directed the Designated Court to dispose or the bail application. The Designated Court refused bail holding that the allegations against the respondent indicated prima fade the applicability f of provisions of the TADA Act. Subsequently, the charge-sheet showing the 42 - STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. AH.H. MOHD. 43 name of the respondent as one of the several accused, was filed in the A Designated Court. Thereafter the High Court disposed of the writ petition holding that the provisions of the TADA Act were not attracted to the case of the respondent and he was liable to be prosecuted only under the Arms Act. It quashed the prosecution against the respondent in the Designated Court and directed that the respondent be released on bail and the case B be transferred to the Court of Sessions for taklng cognizance of the offence under the Arms Act. However, the High Court certified that the case was a flt one for appeal to the Supreme Court. Hence the appeal by the State. It was contended on behalf of the appellant-State that the High Court was not empowered to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash a prosecution launched for punishment of offences under the TADA Act; and as the accusation against the respondent and the material on which it was based, attracted the provisions of the TADA Act, it was not open to the High Court to interfere with the order of the Designated Court refusing ball to the respondent. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1. There was no justification for the High Court to exercise D its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for examining the merit of the case much less for quashing the prosecution of the respondent E in the Designated Court for offences punishable under TADA Act. The prosecution of the respondent in the Designated Court shall continue in accordance with the provisions of TADA Act. [48-F; 49-A] 1.2. The power of the High Court under Article 226 is not ma:lsable in c•ses like the instant one where it may be debatable whether the direct p accusation made in conjunction with the attendent circumstances, if proved to be true, is likely to result in conviction for an offence under TADA Act. The High Court performed the laboured exercise of scrutinising the materfal containing the accusation made against the respondent and the merits of the findings recorded by the Designated Court holding that the provisions or TADA Act were attracted. The mo- G ment there
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.