A watch was also kept on appellant who was residing in a house bearing No.
They, therefore, went to the house of the appellant and took him to the office of the Operation Cell in Lodhi Colony for interrogation.
As Joginder Singh was number traced, the trial proceeded against Manoranjan Singh and Gurmeet Singh.
It was the prosecution case that the police had information that some terrorists of Punjab were to carry out explosions in various parts of Delhi and therefore, they were keeping a watch at Vishnu Garden, Rajouri Garden and Tilak Nagar.
The trial companyrt acquitted Gurmeet Singh as it was number proved that he had taken that room on lease and as in possession of it.
C 44, near Vishnu Garden and they had kept some explosive material in that room.
For the offence punishable under Section 5 of the TADA Act, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ .
For the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years.
of RDX and one timer device.
It was opened by a keep which was with the appellant.
The trial companyrt believed the evidence of PW 1 Babu Singh.
The appellant made a disclosure statement that Joginder Singh with whom he had good companytacts had taken a house on rent bearing No.
On 6.4.93, the police party companysisting of Inspector Babu Singh, Inspector Nand Kishore and Sub Inspector Satish Kumar decided to raid the premises in which they suspected that explosive material was kept.
The appellant then pointed out a raxine bag companytaining one dalda tin companytaining 2 Kgs.
F 167, near Vishnu Garden, as some unknown persons were seen visiting his house.
All these articles were seized by the police and, after companypeting the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and two other, namely, Gurmeet Singh and Joginder Singh.
Nanavati, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Additional judge, Designated Court, Delhi, in Sessions case No.
