Supreme Court Upholds Transfer Decision in Terror Act Case

NIRANJAN SINGH KARAM SINGH PUNJABI ADVOCATE Versus JITENDRA BHIMRAJ BIJJA

NIRANJAN SINGH KARAM SINGH PUNJABI ADVOCATE Versus JITENDRA BHIMRAJ BIJJA - 1990 AIR 1962, 1990 (3) SCR 633, 1990 (4) SCC 76, 1990 (3) JT 408, 1990 (2) ... Issues Involved:
1. Application of Section 3 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.
2. Jurisdiction of the Designated Court to try offences under other statutes.
3. Interpretation of the intent behind the commission of the crime.

Summary:

1. Application of Section 3 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987:
The prosecution charged the accused u/s 3 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, along with Sections 302, 307 read with Sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC, and Section 37 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The Designated Court initially concluded that Section 3 of the Act was wrongly applied, as the intent of the accused was not to "strike terror in the people or any section of the people," but rather to eliminate rivals and gain supremacy in the underworld. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the intention behind the crime was not to commit a terrorist act but to gain dominance in the underworld. The mere fallout of terror among people cannot be construed as the intent to strike terror as per Section 3(1) of the Act.

2. Jurisdiction of the Designated Court to try offences under other statutes:
The State of Maharashtra contended that u/s 12(1), the Designated Court could try any other offence connected with the offence under the Act. However, the Supreme Court clarified that if the Designated Court finds no sufficient ground for framing a charge under Section 3(1) of the Act, it must transfer the case to a regular court u/s 18. The Designated Court correctly transferred the case to the Court of Sessions, Ahmadnagar, as it found no prima facie evidence for the application of Section 3(1) of the Act.

3. Interpretation of the intent behind the commission of the crime:
The Supreme Court agreed with the Designated Court's assessment that the crime was motivated by inter-gang rivalry rather than an intent to strike terror among the populace. The statements of the witnesses indicated that the accused aimed to eliminate their rivals to gain control in the underworld, not to create terror among the general public. The Court emphasized that the intent to strike terror must be explicit and not inferred from the consequences of the act.

Conclusion:
All three appeals were dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the Designated Court's decision to transfer the case to the Sessions Court, Ahmadnagar, and directed the Sessions Court to expedite the trial. The special leave petition against the High Court's order refusing bail was disposed of as not pressed.