Terrorist intent is essential under TADA; inter-gang violence without intent to strike public terror goes to regular court.

A terrorist charge under the TADA Act could be framed only where the record created a strong prima facie suspicion that the acted with intent to strike terror in the people or a section of the people. On the material described, the violence arose from inter-gang rivalry and an attempt to eliminate rivals, which may have caused fear but did not show the requisite terrorist intent; no prima facie offence under Section 3(1) was made out. Once that special charge failed, the Designated Court could not continue with the connected offences under the Act and had to transfer the matter to the ordinary criminal court under the statutory scheme. The case was therefore to proceed before the Sessions Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the material on record disclosed a prima facie offence under Section 3(1) of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. (ii) Whether, after finding that no charge under Section 3(1) of the Act was made out, the Designated Court could proceed with the connected offences or was bound to transfer the case under Section 18 of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the material on record disclosed a prima facie offence under Section 3(1) of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.

Analysis: At the stage of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court is required to consider whether the record and documents disclose sufficient ground for proceeding and may sift the material only to the limited extent necessary to determine whether the ingredients of the alleged offence are made out. A charge under the Act can be framed only if the material gives rise to a strong suspicion that the accused acted with intent to strike terror in the people or a section of the people. The material here pointed to inter-gang rivalry and an attack to eliminate rivals and gain supremacy in the underworld. The violent consequences may have created fear, but the object of the assault was not to strike terror in the public at large.

Conclusion: No prima facie case under Section 3(1) of the Act was made out and the finding against the application of that provision was correct.

Issue (ii): Whether, after finding that no charge under Section 3(1) of the Act was made out, the Designated Court could proceed with the connected offences or was bound to transfer the case under Section 18 of the Act.

Analysis: Section 12(1) permits a Designated Court to try connected offences only when it is properly seized of an offence under the Act. Once the Court concluded that no offence under Section 3(1) was prima facie disclosed, it lacked a basis to continue with the case for the other offences. In that situation, Section 18 required transfer of the matter to a court having jurisdiction under the Code. The course adopted by the Designated Court accorded with the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The Designated Court rightly transferred the case to the Sessions Court.

Final Conclusion: The decision holds that the special statute could not be invoked for a case of inter-gang violence lacking the requisite terrorist intent, and that the matter had to be tried by the regular criminal court once the special charge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A violent act constitutes a terrorist act only when the prosecution material prima facie shows an intent to strike terror in the people or a section of the people, and where that ingredient is absent the Designated Court must transfer the case to the competent ordinary court.

---