On seeing the police party he tried to run away but he was apprehended after a chase and on inquiry he disclosed his name as Harpal Singh appellant in this appeal .
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.3.1992 Kamaljit Singh, SHO, Santokh Singh, SI and some other police personnel were going from village Kukar Pind to village Raipur in companynection with investigation of a case bearing FIR No.
He was declared as absconder on 20.1.1995.
31 under Section 302/34 IPC, Section 25 Arms Act and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 hereinafter referred to as TADA .
A ruka was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered against the appellant.
Thereafter he went away to USA and applied for political asylum.
The charge sheet was submitted in the Designated Court which took companynizance of the offence and proceeded with the trial of the appellant.
As applied to a particular claim or companytroversy, jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine the companytroversy.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
The appellant was granted bail in the case under the Explosives Act on 1.7.1992.
548 OF 2007 P. MATHUR, J. This Appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2007 of Designated Court, Kapurthala at Jalandhar in TADA Sessions Case No.
4 of 2006 by which the appellant has been companyvicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and has been sentenced to 5 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/ .
When they reached on Byen Bridge in village Kukar Pind, they saw a person companying on foot.
