Rattan Singh vs State of Haryana

G.S. Chahal, J. (Oral)

Rattan Singh, by means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order and charge framed under Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (for short the Act, 1985) in case FIR 165 dated May 6, 1985 P.S. Sadar Hisar. 2. The case FIR No. 165 dated June 26, 1985 was registered for offences under Sections 148, 307, 325, 323, 429 read with Section 149 IPC and 27 of the Act on the basis of a statement made by Jaipal son of Hari Ram. The informant had given a version to the effect that on June 25, 1985, he and others had dug foundations in a vacant plot which they claim themselves to be in possession of and they had also stored bricks for constructing the wall. Jaipal alongwith Sunder, Gulab, Bhim Singh, Ranbir and Hari Ram were present at that plot and at about 4/4.30 p.m. Rattan Singh accused carrying a double barrel gun, Randhir armed with a Jelly, Baljit and Raghbir armed with Dangs came to that spot. They laid a claim to the plot. Rattan Singh abused and asked the complainant party to go away. Rattan Singh fired 67 shots in the air. In the meantime, Mewa Singh and Surjit Singh carrying Lathis also arrived. Baljit, Raghbir and Ranbir started inflicting injuries to the complainant party with their respective weapons. Jaipal was injured with pellets of the shot fired by Rattan Singh. He also received injuries at the hands of Ranbir Singh with Lathi. Subsequently, they were taken to the Civil Hospital. In the same occurrence, a shecamel tethered in the plot was also shot dead. This occurrence was witnessed by Rattan Singh, Dhan Singh and Nihal Singh. 3. After investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was put up by the police in the Court of the Magistrate, who committed the same to Court of Sessions and after commitment the case was entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar for proceeding with trial. On November 8, 1986, on the basis of an application move by the prosecution, a charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act read with Section 6(1) of the Act of 1985 was also framed. Subsequently, the complainant got an application forwarded through the Public Prosecutor for dropping of this charge under Section 6 of the Act of 1985, but the same was dismissed on October 17, 1987. The Additional Judge, Designated Court. Bhiwani, however, relying upon the observations in 1987(2) Recent CR 531 forwarded the case to Sessions Judge, Hisar, stating that the case was not triable by the Designated Court and be assigned to any Additional Sessions Judge, and it was again entrusted to Sh. K.K. Chopra, in his capacity as Additional Sessions Judge. The case was, at a subsequent time put up before Shri B.R. Gupta, Additional Judge Designated Court, Bhiwani and he is trying it in that capacity. An application was move before him by the accused petitioners that the charge under Section 6(1) of the Act of 1985 be dropped as no Terrorist and Disruptive Activity had been alleged in the case. Vide the impugned order dated December 21, 1998, this application was rejected. 4. Shri Baldev Singh who appears for the petitioners has urged that in view of the observations of their Lordships of the Full Bench in Bimal Kaur v. Union of India, 1987(2) RCR 531 , the charge under section 6 of the Act of 1985 has to be dropped.

In the Full Bench judgment, the various petitions including that of Bimal Kaur v. Union of India and others had been decided and though with respect of the petition of Bimal Kaur, various questions referred to the Full Bench were answered, the petitions were ordered to be listed before appropriate Bench. However in respect to CWP No. 1629 of 1986 which related to Haryana State, the matter was finally decided. This writ had arisen in respect to the trial of a case under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Sections 6 and 10 of the Act of 1985. The petitioner was alleged to have been found in possession of a single barrel gun of 12 bore along with 10 cartridges of the same bore. Their Lordships considered the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1985 and the corresponding provision in the Act of 1987 and held that in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act of 1987, the provisions of all other Acts including the Act of 1985 would become inapplicable to the pending cases so far as they were inconsistent with the provisions of Act of 1987. The proposition was clearly laid down that to bring a charge under Section 6 of the Act of 1987, the commission of the offence must be with an intent to aid any terrorists or disruptionist and with that end in view, there should be contravention of the Arms Act.

In the present case, there was no allegation as may bring the case under section 6 of Act of 1987. It was only an offence committed under the Indian Penal Code. I hereby accept the petition and quash the impugned order and the charge under Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1985. A direction is hereby issued to the Sessions Judge, Hisar to entrust the case to any Additional Sections Judge, for trial regarding remaining offences.