PANDYA - (1.). The learned Special Designated Judge is dealing with what has been registered in the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad as Terrorist Sessions Case No. 3 of 1990 against the present petitioner. The incident relating to the said case occurred on 14-5-1989 and at Amraiwadi Police Station, an offence came to be registered at No. 242 of 1989 disclosing offences under Secs. 302, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, under Secs. 25(i)(b)(a) of the Indian Arms Act and under Secs. 3 and 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Terrorist Act'). The latter Act is the focus of attention in this petition. Before the learned Designated Judge could frame the charge for offence under Sec. 5 of the Terrorist Act, by application at Exh. 5 the learned Designated Judge was moved to discharge the accused from offence under Sec. 5 of the said Terrorist Act.
(2.). The argument advanced seems to be that by commission of the alleged offence by the petitioners, the people were not terroised in any manner whatsoever and hence, the provisions of the Terrorist Act could not have been invoked. The learned Designated Judge dealt with application Exh. 5 on behalf of petitioner No. 1 and application Exh. 7 on behalf of petitioner No. 2 by a common order and rejected both on 23-8-1990.
(3.). In view of the aforesaid averment made in the applications Exhs. 5 & 7 that people in fact were not terrorised, it seems that the attention had shifted to in the course of argument, whether Sec. 5 itself makes it to be an independent offence under the Terrorist Act. The learned Designated Judge has clearly expressed himself to the effect in para 3 that Sec. 5 of the Terrorist Act makes possession of a fire-arm in a notified area an offence punishable thereunder.