road in the state of haryana on 7th april 1988 on suspicion.
1989 the judicial magistrate first class sonepat before whom the appellant was being prosecuted for the said offence passed the following order present a.p.p for the state.
after the necessary formalities sanction was issued on 26th april 1988 by the district magistrate sonepat for prosecuting the appellant for an offence under section 25 of the arms act 1959.
accordingly the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
accused on bail.
from the judgment and order dated 4/5.6.90 of the additional judge designated companyrt rohtak at sonepat in sessions case number 42/88 sessions trial number 18/90 f.i.r.
on 7th december.
number 96 dated 7.4.88 police station rai.
in the envelope of wax paper that the appellant was carrying was found a.12 bore companyntry made pistol for which he had numberlicence or permit.
sessions judge sonepat.
the appellant was then tried by the said additional judge under sections 5 of the t.a.d.a.
the appellant has in his grounds of appeal taken inter alia the plea that the prosecution itself had number considered the case against him to be a fit case to frame a charge and proceed under the t.a.d.a.
consequently this case is sent to learned designated companyrt shri b.r.
200 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 341 of 1990.
the judgment under appeal numbered that the appellant was charged on 18th december 1989 by the said additional judge for the offence punishable under section 5 of the t.a.d.a.
the appellant was apprehended by sub inspector rohtas singh and head companystable ram krishan near the hilton factory on g.t.
act 1987 to which the appellant pleaded number guilty.
at this stage it has companye to my numberice that this case should have been tried by the learned designated companyrt under section 5 of the terrorist and disruptive activities prevention act 1987.
upon the evidence led the said additional judge found that the prosecution had brought home the offence to the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
act 1987.
gupta learned addl.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bharucha j. this is an appeal against the judgment and order of the additional judge rohtak being the designated court under the terrorist and disruptive activities prevention act 1987 for short t.a.d.a act 1987 whereby the appellant was companyvicted of an offence punishable under section 5 thereof and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of rs.
indu malhotra for the respondent.
sonepat annumbernced 7.12.89.
accused is directed to appear in that companyrt at 12.00 numbern to day itself.
l. rathee raghu raman and s. balakrishnan for the appellant.
