Lehmbar Ram vs State of Punjab and ors

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu,

The present revision has been filed against the order dated 1581988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby the respondents Avtar Singh, Malkiat Singh and Rajinder Kaur were charged for the offences under Section 302/120B I.P.C.

A case under Sections 302/34 IPC, Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act was registered against respondents Nos. 2 to 4 on 1931988 at Police Station, Banga on the statement of Lehmbar Ram petitioner. He reported that he worked as a servant with Amrik Singh deceased a resident of village Behram and according to his daily routine after taking his meals he went to the Haveli and slept there. At about 10.00 or 10.30 p.m. he heard report of fires. Some time later Rajinder Kaur respondent, wife of Amrik Singh deceased came to him and told that her husband Amrik Singh had gone to fetch medicine for her as she was suffering from stomach but he had not returned. There was firing outside and he should go and verify. He took a torch and went towards the shop of Dr. Dhir where near the old mosque he, saw Amrik Singh lying dead in a pool of blood in the middle of the road. He was having fire arm injuries. He informed about the occurrence to Gurbachan Singh and left him to guard the dead body. The occurrence was also narrated to Jagjit Singh.

On the basis of this report investigation was conducted and Rajinder Kaur wife of the deceased and the other two respondents were arrested. The offence was alleged to have been committed with a licensed firearm. After completion of investigation challan was presented in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nawanshahar, who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions for the offences under Section 302/34 IPC, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, found that only a case under Sanctions 302/320 IPC was made out as per documents placed on record and the respondents were wrongly committed under Sections 3 and 4 the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act as the prosecution had itself dropped these offences after investigation. Aggrieved by this order Lehmber Ram complainant filed the present revision petition.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri H.S. Gill was that as an offence under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act was mentioned in the report and the case was committed for trial of that offence also then only a designated court was competent to see whether an offence cognizable by it was prima facie made out or not. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had committed an error by omitting to frame a charge under Section 5 of the Act.

The question to be determined in the case is whether as per allegations in the first information report any offence under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act was prima facie made out. Section 5 of the above mentioned Act reads as under :

"If any person with intent to aid any terrorist or disrupting, contravenes any provision of, or any rule made under, the Arms Act 1959, the Explosive Act, 1884, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 or the Inflammable Substances Act, 1952 he shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any of the aforesaid Acts or the rules made thereunder, he punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to term of life and shall also be liable to fine.

In the instant case there are absolutely no allegations that any person with intent to help any of the respondents, contravened any provisions of the Arms Act, the Explosive Act or the Explosive Substances Act etc. Rather the impugned order shows that no fire arm was recovered from any of the accusedrespondents. Even in the grounds of revision no specific allegation was made that any firearm was recovered from any of the respondents. As such no case under Section 5 of the Act was prima facie made out and the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly omitted to frame a charge for that offence. The revision petition is devoid of any force and the same is, hereby dismissed.