Balbir Singh and Another vs State of U.P.

These two appellants have been convicted by the learned Designated Judge Lakhimpur Kheri Under Sections 124A, 153A, I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 on the allegation that on 14-11-1985 at 10.30 a.m. they were found to be hearing some cassettes containing speech of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhinderwala. The so-called speech of Bhinderwala has been quoted in the impugned judgment. To attract Section 4 of TADA, it is obligatory for the prosecution to establish that the accused committed or conspired or attempted to commit or abetted, advocated, or advised or knowingly facilitated the commission of any disruptive activity or any act preparatory to a disruptive activity. The expression "disruptive activity" has been defined in Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of TADA. From the entire prosecution evidence established in this case, we really fail to appreciate how it can be said that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge under Sub-section (1) to Section 4 of TADA. There is not an iota of evidence to indicate that the accused appellants either committed or conspired or attempted to commit or abetted or advocated or advised or knowingly facilitated the commission of any disruptive activity.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the offence u/s 4(1) of TADA cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt to convict the appellants u/s 4(1) of TADA. Similarly, we are also satisfied that no offence can be said to have been committed either u/s 124A or Section 153A of the I.P.C. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants and acquit them of the charges leveled against. The appeal" is, accordingly, allowed. The bail bonds of the appellants stand discharged.