2002 (7) TMI 843

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellants have been convicted for offences under Sections 399 and 402 I.P.C. as also Section 25 of the Arms Act. Besides these two appellants, the three other accused who were convicted by the Designated Court by common judgment were Suleman, Chiman and Sadhu Ram. Suleman and Sadhu Ram were also convicted under Section 5 of the TADA Act. We are, however, not concerned with their cases since the appeals filed by the said three were decided by this Court in case  : 1999 CriLJ 2525 - Suleman and Ors. v. State of Delhi, and their conviction under Sections 399 and 402 I.P.C. was set aside. The conviction and sentence under TADA Act was, however, maintained and also the conviction and sentence for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act the only course open to the Designated Court is to transfer the case under Section 18 of the TADA Act for trial of other offences by a court having jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Sukhbir Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana  (1997) 8 SCC 164 . 6. In support of the second contention, learned counsel for the parties have taken us through the testimony of PWs 2, 3 and 6. PW2 is a Head Constable Chand Singh, PW3 is Inspector Ram Pal Sharma and PW6 is S.I. Om Prakash. The testimony of PW3 has no relevance in so far as the recovery from the appellants is concerned. According to the case of the prosecution, knives were recovered from the appellants.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case. In any event, we are not concerned in these appeals with the question of recovery of fire arms or knives from Suleman, Chiman or Sadhu Ram, the appellants in Suleman's case. In the present appeals, we are concerned with the recovery of the knives from the two appellants. It cannot be said that since the recovery against the three appellants in Suleman's case was held to be proved, it is not open to the appellants in the present appeals, to urge to the contrary. These appellants were not parties in Suleman's case and factual finding therein cannot bind them. Keeping in view Suleman's judgment, with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we minutely examined the original case record since the State had not f....