MOHAMMAD RASHID KHAN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1994-4-19
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on April 13,1994

RASHID KHAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

QUINN V. LEATHAM [REFERRED TO]
SAKTI SADHAN MAHJI V. THE STATE [REFERRED TO]
A.KBURMAN V. ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
A V. B [REFERRED TO]
DULAL CHANDRA GHOSH V. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,BIRBHUM [REFERRED TO]
SYED MOHAMMAD HASAN V. K.C.DAS,DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORT AND EXPORT [REFERRED TO]
A V. B [REFERRED TO]
A V. B [REFERRED TO]
AKSHOY KONAI V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
A V. B [REFERRED TO]
A V. B [REFERRED TO]
R R CHARI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
ASWINI KUMAR GHOSE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY CALCUTTA HIGH COURT INTERVENERS VS. ARABINDA BOSE [REFERRED TO]
HIMMATLAL HARILAL MEHTA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
H N RISHBUD VS. STATE OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
R P KAPUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RANCHBODDAS ATMARAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AJIT KUMAR PALIT VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF BIHAR VS. MAHABIR LAL [REFERRED TO]
JAMUNA SINGLI VS. BHADAI SHAH [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH MISRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. SUDHANSU SEKHAR MISRA [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT SHAHDARA DELHI SAHARANPUR LIGHT RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED VS. S S RAILWAY WORKERS UNION [REFERRED TO]
GIRDHARI LAL GUPTA VS. D N MEHTA ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [REFERRED TO]
CENTURY SPINNING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
DEBU GHOSE ASWINI KUMAR DAS MANICK CHANDRAROY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
ANANTA MUKHI ALIAS ANANTA HARI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
S K KEDAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
KISHORI MOHAN BERA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
RAVAL AND CO VS. K G RAMACHANDRAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. L MUNISWAMY [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
MADHU LIMAYE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT OF INDIA VS. SPECIAL COURTS BILL 1978 [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD IQBAL AHMED VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
V C SHUKLA VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
VASUDEO VISHWANATH SAFAF VS. NEW EDUCATION INSTITUTE [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [FOLLOWED ON]
USMANBHAI DAWOODBHAI MEMON VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. ANAND CHINTAMAN DIGHE [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN SINGH KARAM SINGH PUNJABI ADVOCATE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA JITENDRA BHIMRAJ BIJJAYA VS. JITENDRABHIMRAJBIJJAYA:JITENDRABHIMRAJBIJJAYA:JITENDRA BHIMRAJ BIJJAYA:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
DILAVAR HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
ERRAM SANTOSH REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KATHULA SOMULU ALIAS MALLANA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. A MUHAMMEDYOUSEF [REFERRED TO]
ANIL SANJEEV HEGDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. S ESHAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. ABDUL HAMID HAJI MOHAMMED [REFERRED TO]
AYUBKHAN KALANDARKHAN PATHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
K DORESWAMY IYENGAR VS. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR ABOLITION OF INAMS BANGALORE [REFERRED TO]
BHAGIRATHI SAHA VS. ANANTANARAYAN DAS CHOUDHURY [REFERRED TO]
DEONANDAN OJHA VS. RAMDEYAL OJHA [REFERRED TO]
ZUBAIDA SULTAN BEGUM VS. DAWOOD ISMAIL MAKRA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)- In the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity and propriety of the cognizance taken by the Designated Court constituted under Section 9 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the TADA Act) presided over by the learned Judge l2th Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta of the case arising out of Section H (Bowbazar P.S.) Case No. 84 dated 17/03/1993. The petitioner has also prayed for declaration that the said cognizance taken as also all subsequent proceedings relating thereto to be illegal, void and inoperative in law. In the instant writ petition the provisions of the said TADA Act have also been challenged as ultra vires the Constitution of India. Since, however, the vires of the said statute which has been challenged in the instant writ petition it was also the subject matter of a proceeding pending in the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab and Kripa Shankar Rai v. The State of U.P. the petitioner, although he has not given up the said question has made his submissions on other questions.
(2.)The brief facts leading to this instant writ petition inter alia are that on the evening of 16/03/1993 an explosion occurred at or near premises No. 267, B.B. Ganguly Street, Calcutta. As a result of the explosion several persons died, others were injured and premises No. 267, B.B. Ganguly Street and some buildings adjoining it collapsed and/or were badly damaged.
(3.)On 17/03/1993 one B. K. Chattopadhyay, a Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the Bowbazar Police Station, lodged a complaint regarding the said incident at the said Police Station. The said complaint was treated as a First Information Report and on that basis a case was registered in the said Bowbazar Police Station under Sections 120B/436/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 6 of the Explosives Substances Act. The said case was numbered as Section H (Bowbazar Police Station) Case No. 84 dated 17/03/1993. Copy of the said complaint has been filed and marked Annexure 'A' to the writ petition. The complaint records that on hearing a loud sound from Bipin Behari Ganguli Street, the complainant proceeded to the place of occurrence of explosion, observed the damage caused by it and he arranged for removal of the injured persons to hospitals. He also collected materials for examination and examined a good number of persons. On the basis of such enquiry, the complainant arrived at the following conclusion:
".......... considering the above facts and circumstances, I do hereby lodge complaint that some unknown persons pursuant to their criminal conspiracy caused explosion at the aforesaid collapse building by means of explosive materials causing death of 40 persons, attempted to murder and grievious hurt to several persons for causing injuries at the above noted date, time and place."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.