V.S. Kokje, J.
1. The petitioner is an accused in a case pending before the Designated Court at Ajmer under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short 'the T.A.D.A. Act' hereinafter).
2. The petitioner is being proceeded against on the allegation that he has committed offences under Sections 5 of the T.A.D.A. Act and under Sections 7/25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. As the petitioner in his petition has stated that he was being proceeded against under Sections 3 and 5 of the T.A.D.A. Act, the case was fixed for rehearing and it was not clarified as to whether the petitioner is being proceeded against under Section 3 of the T.A.D.A. Act also. However, on the basis of the certified copy of the challan produced by the petitioner, a copy of which is already on record as Annexure 1 to the petition, it is clear that the petitioner is being proceeded against on the aforesaid offences only. Though the petition is for quashing the entire proceedings against the petitioner, at the hearing the only point raised was that since offence under Section 5 of the T.A.D.A. Act would be committed only within the notified area and as the prosecution case against the petitioner is that he has committed the offences described under Section 5 of the T.A.D.A. Act in the District of Nagour which is not a notified area, he cannot be proceeded against under the T.A.D.A. Act before the Designated Court.
3. According to the prosecution story as disclosed in the challan papers accused Poonam Chand gave information to the Police on Oct. 15, 1993 that he had sold one A.K. 56 rifle with two magzines and 30 cartridges to Jagdish S/ o. Lalu Ram Bishnoi and two A.K. 56 rifles, two magzines and 60 cartridges to Madan Lal Sadh R/o. Kuchera who is his turn sold the same to accused Sawai Singh (petitioner), R/o Kuchera. On this information accused Sawai Singh, the petitioner was arrested on Oct. 27, 1993 and during investigation he is said to have admitted having purchased two rifles, three magzines and 59. crtridges from accused Poonam Chand through Madan Lal Sadh. The arms and ammunitions are said to have been recovered from the accused Sawai Singh the petitioner on his information furnished under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The statements under Section 15 of the T.A.D.A. Act are said to have been recorded.
4. It is not disputed that these arms and ammunations were recovered from the petitioner's house at Kuchera in District.- Nagour and there is no allegation that the arms were taken out or possessed by the petitioner any where outside the Nagour District.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that under Section 5 of the T.A.D.A. Act of 1987, for the purpose of offences under that Section, it was necessary that the specified arms and ammunitions have to be possessed within a notified area. According to the petitioner District-Nagour is not a notified area and therefore even on the allegations made in the challan papers, it cannot be said that the petitioner had committed any offence under the T.A.D.A. Act and the Designated Court shall have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence against him.
6. To appreciate the arguments, it would be necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions of the T.A.D.A. Act of 1987.
7. Section 2(l)(c) defines 'Designated Court' to mean a Designated Court constituted under Section 9.
8. Section 2(l)(f) defines 'notified area' to mean such area as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify.
9. Section 5 of the Act reads as under:
Section 5. POSSESSION OF CERTAIN UNAUTHORISED ARMS, ETC. IN SPECIFIED AREAS - Where any person is in possession of any arms and ammunition specified in Columns 2 and 3 of Category I or Category III(a) of Schedule I to the Arms Rules, 1962, or bombs dynamite or other explosive substances unauthorisedly in a notified area, he shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
10. Section 11 of the Act provides for jurisdiction of the Designated Court. Sub-section (1) of Section 11 would be relevant for our purpose and is reproduced hereunder:
Section 11(1): Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code every offence punishable under any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall be triable only by the Designated Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed or, as the case may be, by the Designated Court constituted for trying such offence under Sub-section (1) of Section 9.
Section 12 of the Act provides power of all Designated Courts with respect to other offences. It reads as under:
Section 12. Power of designated courts with respect to other offences. -- (1) When trying any offence, a Designated Court may also try any other offence with which the accused may, under the code, be charged at the same trial if the offence is connected with such other offence.
(2) If, in the course of any trial under this Act of any offence, it is found that the accused person has committed any other offence under this Act or any rule made thereunder or under any other law, the Designated Court may convict such person of such other offence and pass any sentence authorised by this Act or such rule or, as the case may be, such other law, for the punishment thereof.
Section 18 of the Act provides for power to transfer cases to regular Courts. It reads as under:-
Section 18. Power to transfer cases to regular courts. -- Where, after taking cognizance of any offence, a Designated Court is of opinion that the offence is not triable by it, it shall, not withstanding that it has no jurisdiction to try such offence, transfer the case for the trial of such offence to any court having jurisdiction under the Code and the Court to which the case is transferred may proceed with the trial of the offence as if it had taken cognizance of the offence.
11. The petitioner contends that in view of the plain language of Section 5 of the T.A.D.A. Act if a person is found in possession of the specified arms and ammunitions or bombs, dynamite or other explosive unauthorisedly in a notified area, then only he can be punished under the Section. It is an admitted position that District -- Nagour in which village -- Kuchera from where the contraband arms are said to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner is not a notified area under the T.A.D.A. Act. By Notification dated Dec.7, 1931 Annexure 2 to the petition, only Districts -- Bikaner, Jodhpur, Jaisalmer and Barmer in Rajasthan have been declared to be notified areas under Section 2(1)(f) of the Act. When it is not alleged that the petitioner had possessed the contraband arms or ammunitions in a notified area, charge under Section 5 of the T.A.D.A. Act falls to the ground and on such groundless charge, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against before a Designated Court. It would be clear from the plain language of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 also that offences under the T.A.D.A. Act have to be tried by a Designated Court alone and it would be clear from the plain language of Section 12 of the Act that other offences can be tried by a Designated Court under the T.A.D.A. Act only if it is trying any offence under the T.A.D.A. Act. If there is no charge for any of the offences under the T.A.D.A. Act with which some other offences triable under the Code of Criminal Procedure are connected, the Designated Court is not empowered to try offences triable under the Code of Criminal Procedure generally. If such a situation arises before a Designated Court, it has been empowered under Section 18 of the Act to transfer the case for the trial of such offences to any Court having jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
12. In view of the aforesaid provisions, we are of the opinion that as no offence under Section 5 of the T.A.D.A. Act can be made out as the petitioner has not been found in possession of the contraband arms and ammunitions within a notified area, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against for the offence under Section 5 of the T.A.D.A. Act before a Designated Court. The Designated Court at Ajmer, therefore would not have jurisdiction to try connected offences under the Arms Act also as it could try such offences only when they are connected with any offence under the T.A.D.A. Act which is being tried by the Designated Court.
13. Consequently, the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 5 of the T.A.D.A. Act deserves to be quashed.. It is hereby quashed. The Designated Court, Ajmer is directed to transfer the case for trial before a Court of competent jurisdiction under Section 18 of the T.A.D.A. Act. The Court shall pass appropriate orders for releasing the petitioner on bail for his appearance before the Court to which the case is transferred within a week of the production of a copy of this order by the counsel for the petitioner appearing before the Designated Court. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.