Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The learned Special Designated Judge is dealing with what has been registered in the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad as Terrorist Sessions Case No. 3 of 1990 against the present petitioner. The incident relating to the said case occurred on 14-5-1989 and at Amraiwadi Police Station, an offence came to be registered at No. 242 of 1989 disclosing offences under Sections 302, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, under Sections 25(i)(b)(a) of the Indian Arms Act and under Sections 3 and 5 of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Terrorist Act'). The latter Act is the focus of attention in this petition. Before the learned Designated Judge could frame the charge for offence under Section 5 of the Terrorist Act, by application at Exh. 5 the learned Designated Judge was moved to discharge the accused from offence under Section 5 of the said Terrorist Act.

6. It is an admitted position that possession of an unauthorised firearm is an offence and it is so under the relevant provisions of the Indian Arms Act. Therefore, according to learned Advocate Shri A.H. Mehta what has been done by Section 5 of the Terrorist Act is to make that very offence under the Arms Act punishable with a higher punishment and according to him, therefore, because some stringent punishment is imposed by one Act for the activity of an accused, which is made to be an offence under another enactment, straightway a conclusion cannot be drawn that because of the higher punishment prescribed under the latter enactment that act itself becomes an offence under the new enactment. In other words, what is an offence under the Indian Arms Act has been made to attract higher punishment or more stringent punishment under the Terrorist Act, but for that reason, only it cannot be said that it becomes an offence under the Terrorist Act also.

28. To my mind, even resort to Section 5 may no longer be necessary because so far as the enhanced punishment is concerned, by amending the provisions of the Arms Act, minimum sentence of six months, further enhanced to one year has been provided though the discretion is left with the Court to impose a lesser sentence for which special reasons are required to be recorded in the judgment. The result of the said discussion therefore, is that the conclusion of the learned Designated Judge in his order that possession of fire-arm in a notified area is an offence punishable under the Terrorist Act is not correct. It is punishable being an offence under the Arms Act and not as per the provisions of the Terrorist Act. By this I mean that it is an offence under the former Act and not under the latter Act. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, it being a notified area as long as there is a difference between the quantum of punishment under the Arms Act on the one hand and under the Terrorist Act on the other, no doubt, Section 5 of the Terrorist Act is not only required to be invoked but, there being non obstante clause, it is Section 5 of the Terrorist Act that will prevail. There is, therefore, no warrant to suggest that the possession of fire-arm unauthorisedly in a notified area is an offence punishable under the Terrorist Act.

To put it differently, I hold that the Terrorist Act would apply provided the offence is created thereunder and then only the matter will be required to be dealt with by the Designated Court. Possession of firearm therefore, is an offence under the Arms Act and not under the Terrorist Act and the offence having taken place in the notified area, for that reason alone, punishment is to be awarded as per Section 5 of the Terrorist Act. The matter is, therefore, not required to be tried by a Designated Court and it is to be dealt with like any other criminal case under the general