Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
JOGINDER SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION0
DATE OF JUDGMENT19/04/1994
BENCH:
AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)
BENCH:
AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)
ANAND, A.S. (J)
CITATION:
1994 SCC (4) 724
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1.This appeal is directed against the judgment of the
Designated Court, Delhi, whereby the appellant who was
charged with having committed an offence punishable under
Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short TADA) has been convicted
of the said offence and has been sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of
Rs 1000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for another two months. The learned
counsel for the appellant has submitted that the conviction
of the appellant cannot be sustained in view of the decision
of this Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab’. In the
said case R.M. Sahai, J. has construed Section 5 of TADA and
has expressed his view in the following terms : (SCC pp.
766-67, para 460)
"(2) Even though no opinion has been expressed
by Brother Pandian, J., on Section 51 am of
the opinion that the provisions of this
section can be invoked only when the
prosecution is able to establish that there
was some material on record to show that the
arms and ammunition mentioned in the section
were likely to be used for any terrorist or
disruptive activity or that they had been used
as such."
It appears that the other four Judges who constituted the
Bench which decided the said case, have not expressed any
opinion on the construction of Section 5 of TADA. The
question is whether the aforesaid view of Sahai, J. on
interpretation of Section 5 of TADA is to be regarded as the
judgment of he Constitution Bench; if not, what is the true
ambit and scope of Section 5 TADA. Having regard to the
importance of the question which arises in a arge number of
cases, we are of the view that it would be appropriate that
is question is considered by a three-Judge Bench of this
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Court.
2.The matter may be placed before Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India for suitable directions in this regard.
3.Liberty is given to the parties to mention for a date
of hearing of the appeal.
(1994) 3 SCC 569: JT 1994 (2) SC 423
726