Aniruddha Bose JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. This appeal by the Accused is directed against the order passed by the Designated TADA Court whereby the application filed by the Accused that they should be discharged due to noncompliance of Section 20-A(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as TADA Act") was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Appellant No. 1/accused No. 1, Ebha Arjun Jadeja, was wanted in Crime No. II- 3/1994 registered against him Under Section 25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Under Section 3 and 5 of TADA Act etc.
3. The prosecution version is that on 10.04.1995, when Police Inspector C.J. Singh along with some other police personnel was doing night round in Kutiyana and was trying to keep a secret watch over bootleggers, he received some information that Appellant No. 1, who was absconding in Crime No. II-3/1994, was coming to his village in a motor vehicle. The police inspector arranged two witnesses and after preparing preliminary panchnama, left Kutiyana in a Government jeep at about 1.00-1.15 a.m. They set up a naka and at about 2.45 a.m., one motor vehicle came from the side of village Garej. The vehicle was asked to stop and it stopped. Accused No. 1 was found sitting on the driver's seat. The police cordoned the motor vehicle in which two other persons (Appellant Nos. 2 and 3) were also sitting. All these three persons were asked to get down and disclose their identities. On making personal search of these three persons, following recoveries were made:
| S. No. | Name of the accused | Recoveries |
| 1. | Ebha Arjun Jadeja | 1. One foreign made 9 mm beretta pistol and three live cartridges and one fired cartridge, valued at Rs. 1,50,150/-.
2. One 32 bore foreign made revolver and 5 live cartridges, valued at Rs. 50,250/-.
3. One fired cartridge |
| 2. | Bachchu Bhikha Mer | One 315 bore country made tamancha, valued at Rs. 3,000/-. |
| 3. | Keshu Chana Mer | One 12 bore country made tamancha, valued at Rs. 2,000/-. |
4. The three Accused persons could not produce any licence and the aforesaid arms were seized. Though the first information report (FIR) was recorded under the Arms Act, in the very same FIR, the officer also recorded as follows:
"One 9 MM semi automatic prohibited foreign ma........