Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Erram Santosh Reddy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Decided On : Jan-08-1991
Court : Supreme Court of India
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Erram Santosh Reddy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 16', (int) 1 => 'Section 307', (int) 2 => 'Section 34', (int) 3 => 'Section 5', (int) 4 => 'the Explosive Substances Act', (int) 5 => 'Section 25(1)(a', (int) 6 => 'the Indian Arms Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 8', (int) 8 => 'the Explosive Substances Act and Section', (int) 9 => 'the Indian Arms Act', (int) 10 => 'Section 313', (int) 11 => 'Section 3', (int) 12 => 'Section 3', (int) 13 => 'Section 3', (int) 14 => 'Section 4', (int) 15 => 'Section 2(f', (int) 16 => 'Section 2(f', (int) 17 => 'Section 3', (int) 18 => 'Section 7', (int) 19 => 'the Explosive Substances Act', (int) 20 => 'the Explosive Substances Act', (int) 21 => 'Section 18(2' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => 'one', (int) 3 => 'four', (int) 4 => '3.', (int) 5 => '3', (int) 6 => '5', (int) 7 => '4.', (int) 8 => 'one', (int) 9 => '1', (int) 10 => '2', (int) 11 => '1', (int) 12 => '6' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Terrorist' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Disruptive Activities', (int) 1 => 'Tata', (int) 2 => 'the Designated Court', (int) 3 => 'Tata', (int) 4 => 'A-3', (int) 5 => 'the CPI(ML)', (int) 6 => 'the State of Andhra Pradesh', (int) 7 => 'The First Information Report', (int) 8 => 'A-3', (int) 9 => 'the District Collector', (int) 10 => 'Sections', (int) 11 => 'Designated', (int) 12 => 'PW-2', (int) 13 => 'Counsel', (int) 14 => 'the Central Government', (int) 15 => 'Collector', (int) 16 => 'Tata' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1985', (int) 1 => 'five years', (int) 2 => 'five years', (int) 3 => 'one month', (int) 4 => 'three years'', (int) 5 => 'two years', (int) 6 => '12.1.1986', (int) 7 => 'less than five years', (int) 8 => '5' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Khammam', (int) 1 => 'Sri Kondappali Seetharamaiah', (int) 2 => 'Punchanama' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'the early hours', (int) 1 => 'six hours' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Burhanpuram', (int) 1 => 'Counsel', (int) 2 => 'Counsel' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'A-1' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'PW-4' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'firstly' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '656068', 'acts' => 'Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 - Sections 2, 3, 16 and 18(2); <a href="/act/51076/explosive-substances-act-1908-complete-act">Explosive Substances Act, 1908</a> - Sections 5 and 7; Indian Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25(1);', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 1988', 'appellant' => 'Erram Santosh Reddy and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Erram Santosh Reddy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh', 'casenote' => 'Criminal - Terrorist activities - Sections 3 (1) and 18 (2) of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 5 of Explosives Substances Act, Section 34 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of Arms Act - Appellants were organizing cadre of political party creating terror in people to over-awe Government established by law in State by using fire-arms and bombs - Appellants were surrounded by police party and appellant in retaliation hurled bombs with a view to kill police - A-l was in possession of loaded revolver, A-2 was in possession of one hand-grenade, A-3 to A-5 were in possession of country-made bombs - Appellant found guilty for offence under Sections 307/34 and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment by Designated Judge - Appellant also found guilty of offence under Section 5 of Explosives Substances Act and A-1 also convicted for offence under Section 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act - Hence, present appeal - Appellant contended that their act did not come within meaning of terrorist Act as defined under Section 3 (1) - Further contended that bomb thrown did not cause any injury to any people and thus their act would not come within meaning of terrorist - Further alleged delay in lodging of FIR - Further alleged that no sanction was taken for prosecuting appellants for offence under Section 7 Explosives Substances Act - Section 3(1) is very wide and covers any act which strikes terror in the people or Section of the people would attract the said provisions - Facts revealed that appellants were armed with fire-arms as well as explosive substance and also hurled a bomb on the police who were in the premises would go to show that the offence of the appellant was to strike terror in the people or a section of the people including the police - Hurling bomb at the police and other literature recovered from their possession in addition would show that they were indulging in 'terrorist acts' and therefore accordingly they come within the meaning of the word 'terrorist' - Facts revealed that Collector had granted permission and this was in pursuant to delegation of powers as contemplated under Section 18 (2) - Appeal dismissed - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890 Sections 300, 304 Part II & 326: [S.B.Sinha & Asok Kumar Ganguly,JJ] Murder -Accused-appellant and his associate asked deceased to come out of cinema hall - Started quarrelling with deceased on his coming out - Appellant struck blow with knife on back of deceased - Injury was deep and ruptured kidney -Facts not disclosing sudden provocation Commission of offence proved by witnesses -Dying declaration found to be reliable -Held, It is not a case which attracts provisions of Section 304, Part II or Section 326. Conviction of accused under Section 302 is not liable to be interfered with. - That being so the ingredients of Section 2(f) as well as 3(1) are attracted. The fact that the appellants were armed with the fire-arms as well as explosive substance and also hurled a bomb on the police who were in the premises would go to show that the offence of the appellant was to strike terror in the people or a section of the people including the police. Therefore, the meaning of the 'terrorist' has to be gathered from Section 3(1). That being so the facts established by the prosecution would go to show that these appellants were armed with the fire-arms as well as explosives, come within the meaning of 'terrorist'.Hurling the bomb at the police and other literature recovered from their possession in addition would show that they were indulging in 'terrorist acts' and therefore, accordingly they come within the meaning of the word 'terrorist'.6. Yet another submission by the learned Counsel is that there is delay of six hours in lodging the report.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Supreme Court of India', 'court_type' => 'SC', 'decidedon' => '1991-01-08', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'S.R. Pandian; and K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed under Section 16 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (for short 'Tata') against the judgment of the Designated Court, Khammam. The appellants were found guilty under Section 307 read with Section 34 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and under Sections 3 and 3(2)(ii) of the 'Tata' for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each for the above offence in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. They were also convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. A- l is also convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment for the offences under Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act. The prosecution case is as follows. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These appellants along with another accused A-3 were tried for the above said offence. It is alleged that all these accused are the organising cadre of the CPI(ML) Group lead by Sri Kondappali Seetharamaiah, creating terror in the people with the intention to over-awe the Government established by law in the State of Andhra Pradesh by using fire-arms, bombs etc. and they were involved in number of cases. On 12.1.1986 in the early hours the Inspector of police, PW-5, on receiving credible information that A-1, who had gone underground, is organising his party to commit terrorist acts and disruptive activities in a house rented by A-3 at Burhanpuram locality, raided the premises. Observing that the appellants have been surrounded by the police party, A-1 to A-5, who were in the house, hurled a bomb with a view to kill the police. Then PW-5 gave a warning and the accused surrendered and from them several arms and other explosives were recovered. Punchanama was duly prepared in the presence of panch-witnesses. A- l was in possession of loaded revolver, A- 2 was in possession of one hand-grenade, A-3 to A-5 were in possession of country-made bombs. The First Information Report was lodged and a case was duly registered in the above -said offences. During the investigation it was established that the premises was taken on lease by A-3 and the other four accused A-1, A-2 and A- 4 and A-5 were residing therein. After obtaining the sanction from the District Collector, under Section 8 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act, the charge-sheet was laid. The charges under the above Sections were framed and in support of its case the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-6. The accused when examined under Section 313 denied the case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The evidence for the prosecution mainly consists of the persons who conducted the raid namely PW-1 and PW-5, PW-2 the owner of the premises, having supported the prosecution in his earlier statement, turned hostile. PW-3 and PW-4 are the other material witnesses. The learned Designated Judge accepting the evidence of PWs-1, 3 and 5 reached the conclusion that during the raid the police recovered the fire-arms and explosive substance from the possession of the appellants. A-3 was, however, acquitted on the ground that he was Only a tenant and case against him was not established. With the circumstances PW-2, the landlord, himself turned hostile. The learned Designated Judge concluded that the evidence of PW-5 coupled with the evidence of PW-1 establish the prosecution case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this appeal the learned Counsel firstly submitted that the acts alleged to have been committed by the appellants did not come within the meaning of terrorist act as defined under Section 3(1). He submits that no section of people were terrorised nor any one of them in the locality was injured because of the hurling of the bomb and that the prosecution did not establish that the appellants acted in a manner with such intention as mentioned in Section 3 and they do not come within the meaning of the word 'terrorist'. Section 2(f) of the Act defines the 'terrorist act' and lays down that the expression is the meaning assigned to it under Sub-section (1) to Section 3 and that expression 'terrorist' (Terrorist) shall be construed accordingly. Section 3 lays down that 'whoever with intent to overawe the Government as by law established or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people, does any act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances arid fire arms etc., it is terrorist act. Section 3(2), however, lays that whoever commits a terrorist act shall, if such act has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death and in any other case be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to term of life and shall also be liable to fine. For all purposes it may be necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 4. We may at this stage point but that we have carefully gone through the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 5 and it is established that the police party raided the premises and that one of the appellants hurdled bomb on them. Whe the appellants surrendered, fire-arms and explosives substance were recovered from them. That being so the ingredients of Section 2(f) as well as 3(1) are attracted. Section 3(1) is very wide and covers any act which strikes terror in the people or section of the people would attract the said provisions. The fact that the appellants were armed with the fire-arms as well as explosive substance and also hurled a bomb on the police who were in the premises would go to show that the offence of the appellant was to strike terror in the people or a section of the people including the police. Thereafter, we are unable to agree with the learned Counsel in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The next submission of the learned Counsel is that hurling of the bomb has not caused any injury to any one and that being so act committed by the appellants will not bring them within the meaning of the terrorist. It must be remembered that Section 2(f) lays down that the 'terrorist act' is within the meaning of Sub-section (1) to Section 3 and expression 'terrorist' shall be construed accordingly. Therefore, the meaning of the 'terrorist' has to be gathered from Section 3(1). That being so the facts established by the prosecution would go to show that these appellants were armed with the fire-arms as well as explosives, come within the meaning of 'terrorist'. Hurling the bomb at the police and other literature recovered from their possession in addition would show that they were indulging in 'terrorist acts' and therefore, accordingly they come within the meaning of the word 'terrorist'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Yet another submission by the learned Counsel is that there is delay of six hours in lodging the report. We are unable to see as to how this delay would in any manner affect the prosecution case. After raiding, the recoveries were effected and thereafter a report was lodged in the concerned police station. Under these circumstances we do not think that the delay in any manner warrants any adverse inference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The last submission is that no sanction was obtained from the Central Government as laid down under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act for prosecuting the appellants for the offences under the Explosive Substances Act. From the judgment we do not find that any such objection was taken. In any event from the record we find that the Collector granted permission and this must be pursuant to the delegation of powers as contemplated under Section 18(2) of the 'Tata'. Therefore, for the above reasons we see no merits in any one of the submissions. With the result the appeal is dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1991SC1672; 1991CriLJ2189; 1991(2)Crimes671(SC); 1991(1)SCALE846; (1991)3SCC206; 1991(2)LC522(SC)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Andhra Pradesh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '656068' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Erram Santosh Reddy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 16', (int) 1 => 'Section 307', (int) 2 => 'Section 34', (int) 3 => 'Section 5', (int) 4 => 'the Explosive Substances Act', (int) 5 => 'Section 25(1)(a', (int) 6 => 'the Indian Arms Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 8', (int) 8 => 'the Explosive Substances Act and Section', (int) 9 => 'the Indian Arms Act', (int) 10 => 'Section 313', (int) 11 => 'Section 3', (int) 12 => 'Section 3', (int) 13 => 'Section 3', (int) 14 => 'Section 4', (int) 15 => 'Section 2(f', (int) 16 => 'Section 2(f', (int) 17 => 'Section 3', (int) 18 => 'Section 7', (int) 19 => 'the Explosive Substances Act', (int) 20 => 'the Explosive Substances Act', (int) 21 => 'Section 18(2' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => 'one', (int) 3 => 'four', (int) 4 => '3.', (int) 5 => '3', (int) 6 => '5', (int) 7 => '4.', (int) 8 => 'one', (int) 9 => '1', (int) 10 => '2', (int) 11 => '1', (int) 12 => '6' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Terrorist' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Disruptive Activities', (int) 1 => 'Tata', (int) 2 => 'the Designated Court', (int) 3 => 'Tata', (int) 4 => 'A-3', (int) 5 => 'the CPI(ML)', (int) 6 => 'the State of Andhra Pradesh', (int) 7 => 'The First Information Report', (int) 8 => 'A-3', (int) 9 => 'the District Collector', (int) 10 => 'Sections', (int) 11 => 'Designated', (int) 12 => 'PW-2', (int) 13 => 'Counsel', (int) 14 => 'the Central Government', (int) 15 => 'Collector', (int) 16 => 'Tata' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1985', (int) 1 => 'five years', (int) 2 => 'five years', (int) 3 => 'one month', (int) 4 => 'three years'', (int) 5 => 'two years', (int) 6 => '12.1.1986', (int) 7 => 'less than five years', (int) 8 => '5' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Khammam', (int) 1 => 'Sri Kondappali Seetharamaiah', (int) 2 => 'Punchanama' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'the early hours', (int) 1 => 'six hours' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Burhanpuram', (int) 1 => 'Counsel', (int) 2 => 'Counsel' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'A-1' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'PW-4' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'firstly' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '656068', 'acts' => 'Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 - Sections 2, 3, 16 and 18(2); <a href="/act/51076/explosive-substances-act-1908-complete-act">Explosive Substances Act, 1908</a> - Sections 5 and 7; Indian Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25(1);', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 1988', 'appellant' => 'Erram Santosh Reddy and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Erram Santosh Reddy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh', 'casenote' => 'Criminal - Terrorist activities - Sections 3 (1) and 18 (2) of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 5 of Explosives Substances Act, Section 34 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of Arms Act - Appellants were organizing cadre of political party creating terror in people to over-awe Government established by law in State by using fire-arms and bombs - Appellants were surrounded by police party and appellant in retaliation hurled bombs with a view to kill police - A-l was in possession of loaded revolver, A-2 was in possession of one hand-grenade, A-3 to A-5 were in possession of country-made bombs - Appellant found guilty for offence under Sections 307/34 and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment by Designated Judge - Appellant also found guilty of offence under Section 5 of Explosives Substances Act and A-1 also convicted for offence under Section 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act - Hence, present appeal - Appellant contended that their act did not come within meaning of terrorist Act as defined under Section 3 (1) - Further contended that bomb thrown did not cause any injury to any people and thus their act would not come within meaning of terrorist - Further alleged delay in lodging of FIR - Further alleged that no sanction was taken for prosecuting appellants for offence under Section 7 Explosives Substances Act - Section 3(1) is very wide and covers any act which strikes terror in the people or Section of the people would attract the said provisions - Facts revealed that appellants were armed with fire-arms as well as explosive substance and also hurled a bomb on the police who were in the premises would go to show that the offence of the appellant was to strike terror in the people or a section of the people including the police - Hurling bomb at the police and other literature recovered from their possession in addition would show that they were indulging in 'terrorist acts' and therefore accordingly they come within the meaning of the word 'terrorist' - Facts revealed that Collector had granted permission and this was in pursuant to delegation of powers as contemplated under Section 18 (2) - Appeal dismissed - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890 Sections 300, 304 Part II & 326: [S.B.Sinha & Asok Kumar Ganguly,JJ] Murder -Accused-appellant and his associate asked deceased to come out of cinema hall - Started quarrelling with deceased on his coming out - Appellant struck blow with knife on back of deceased - Injury was deep and ruptured kidney -Facts not disclosing sudden provocation Commission of offence proved by witnesses -Dying declaration found to be reliable -Held, It is not a case which attracts provisions of Section 304, Part II or Section 326. Conviction of accused under Section 302 is not liable to be interfered with. - That being so the ingredients of Section 2(f) as well as 3(1) are attracted. The fact that the appellants were armed with the fire-arms as well as explosive substance and also hurled a bomb on the police who were in the premises would go to show that the offence of the appellant was to strike terror in the people or a section of the people including the police. Therefore, the meaning of the 'terrorist' has to be gathered from Section 3(1). That being so the facts established by the prosecution would go to show that these appellants were armed with the fire-arms as well as explosives, come within the meaning of 'terrorist'.Hurling the bomb at the police and other literature recovered from their possession in addition would show that they were indulging in 'terrorist acts' and therefore, accordingly they come within the meaning of the word 'terrorist'.6. Yet another submission by the learned Counsel is that there is delay of six hours in lodging the report.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Supreme Court of India', 'court_type' => 'SC', 'decidedon' => '1991-01-08', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'S.R. Pandian; and K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed under Section 16 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (for short 'Tata') against the judgment of the Designated Court, Khammam. The appellants were found guilty under Section 307 read with Section 34 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and under Sections 3 and 3(2)(ii) of the 'Tata' for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each for the above offence in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. They were also convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. A- l is also convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment for the offences under Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act. The prosecution case is as follows. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These appellants along with another accused A-3 were tried for the above said offence. It is alleged that all these accused are the organising cadre of the CPI(ML) Group lead by Sri Kondappali Seetharamaiah, creating terror in the people with the intention to over-awe the Government established by law in the State of Andhra Pradesh by using fire-arms, bombs etc. and they were involved in number of cases. On 12.1.1986 in the early hours the Inspector of police, PW-5, on receiving credible information that A-1, who had gone underground, is organising his party to commit terrorist acts and disruptive activities in a house rented by A-3 at Burhanpuram locality, raided the premises. Observing that the appellants have been surrounded by the police party, A-1 to A-5, who were in the house, hurled a bomb with a view to kill the police. Then PW-5 gave a warning and the accused surrendered and from them several arms and other explosives were recovered. Punchanama was duly prepared in the presence of panch-witnesses. A- l was in possession of loaded revolver, A- 2 was in possession of one hand-grenade, A-3 to A-5 were in possession of country-made bombs. The First Information Report was lodged and a case was duly registered in the above -said offences. During the investigation it was established that the premises was taken on lease by A-3 and the other four accused A-1, A-2 and A- 4 and A-5 were residing therein. After obtaining the sanction from the District Collector, under Section 8 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act, the charge-sheet was laid. The charges under the above Sections were framed and in support of its case the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-6. The accused when examined under Section 313 denied the case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The evidence for the prosecution mainly consists of the persons who conducted the raid namely PW-1 and PW-5, PW-2 the owner of the premises, having supported the prosecution in his earlier statement, turned hostile. PW-3 and PW-4 are the other material witnesses. The learned Designated Judge accepting the evidence of PWs-1, 3 and 5 reached the conclusion that during the raid the police recovered the fire-arms and explosive substance from the possession of the appellants. A-3 was, however, acquitted on the ground that he was Only a tenant and case against him was not established. With the circumstances PW-2, the landlord, himself turned hostile. The learned Designated Judge concluded that the evidence of PW-5 coupled with the evidence of PW-1 establish the prosecution case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this appeal the learned Counsel firstly submitted that the acts alleged to have been committed by the appellants did not come within the meaning of terrorist act as defined under Section 3(1). He submits that no section of people were terrorised nor any one of them in the locality was injured because of the hurling of the bomb and that the prosecution did not establish that the appellants acted in a manner with such intention as mentioned in Section 3 and they do not come within the meaning of the word 'terrorist'. Section 2(f) of the Act defines the 'terrorist act' and lays down that the expression is the meaning assigned to it under Sub-section (1) to Section 3 and that expression 'terrorist' (Terrorist) shall be construed accordingly. Section 3 lays down that 'whoever with intent to overawe the Government as by law established or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people, does any act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances arid fire arms etc., it is terrorist act. Section 3(2), however, lays that whoever commits a terrorist act shall, if such act has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death and in any other case be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to term of life and shall also be liable to fine. For all purposes it may be necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 4. We may at this stage point but that we have carefully gone through the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 5 and it is established that the police party raided the premises and that one of the appellants hurdled bomb on them. Whe the appellants surrendered, fire-arms and explosives substance were recovered from them. That being so the ingredients of Section 2(f) as well as 3(1) are attracted. Section 3(1) is very wide and covers any act which strikes terror in the people or section of the people would attract the said provisions. The fact that the appellants were armed with the fire-arms as well as explosive substance and also hurled a bomb on the police who were in the premises would go to show that the offence of the appellant was to strike terror in the people or a section of the people including the police. Thereafter, we are unable to agree with the learned Counsel in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The next submission of the learned Counsel is that hurling of the bomb has not caused any injury to any one and that being so act committed by the appellants will not bring them within the meaning of the terrorist. It must be remembered that Section 2(f) lays down that the 'terrorist act' is within the meaning of Sub-section (1) to Section 3 and expression 'terrorist' shall be construed accordingly. Therefore, the meaning of the 'terrorist' has to be gathered from Section 3(1). That being so the facts established by the prosecution would go to show that these appellants were armed with the fire-arms as well as explosives, come within the meaning of 'terrorist'. Hurling the bomb at the police and other literature recovered from their possession in addition would show that they were indulging in 'terrorist acts' and therefore, accordingly they come within the meaning of the word 'terrorist'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Yet another submission by the learned Counsel is that there is delay of six hours in lodging the report. We are unable to see as to how this delay would in any manner affect the prosecution case. After raiding, the recoveries were effected and thereafter a report was lodged in the concerned police station. Under these circumstances we do not think that the delay in any manner warrants any adverse inference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The last submission is that no sanction was obtained from the Central Government as laid down under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act for prosecuting the appellants for the offences under the Explosive Substances Act. From the judgment we do not find that any such objection was taken. In any event from the record we find that the Collector granted permission and this must be pursuant to the delegation of powers as contemplated under Section 18(2) of the 'Tata'. Therefore, for the above reasons we see no merits in any one of the submissions. With the result the appeal is dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1991SC1672; 1991CriLJ2189; 1991(2)Crimes671(SC); 1991(1)SCALE846; (1991)3SCC206; 1991(2)LC522(SC)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Andhra Pradesh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '656068' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Erram Santosh Reddy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 16', (int) 1 => 'Section 307', (int) 2 => 'Section 34', (int) 3 => 'Section 5', (int) 4 => 'the Explosive Substances Act', (int) 5 => 'Section 25(1)(a', (int) 6 => 'the Indian Arms Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 8', (int) 8 => 'the Explosive Substances Act and Section', (int) 9 => 'the Indian Arms Act', (int) 10 => 'Section 313', (int) 11 => 'Section 3', (int) 12 => 'Section 3', (int) 13 => 'Section 3', (int) 14 => 'Section 4', (int) 15 => 'Section 2(f', (int) 16 => 'Section 2(f', (int) 17 => 'Section 3', (int) 18 => 'Section 7', (int) 19 => 'the Explosive Substances Act', (int) 20 => 'the Explosive Substances Act', (int) 21 => 'Section 18(2' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => 'one', (int) 3 => 'four', (int) 4 => '3.', (int) 5 => '3', (int) 6 => '5', (int) 7 => '4.', (int) 8 => 'one', (int) 9 => '1', (int) 10 => '2', (int) 11 => '1', (int) 12 => '6' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Terrorist' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Disruptive Activities', (int) 1 => 'Tata', (int) 2 => 'the Designated Court', (int) 3 => 'Tata', (int) 4 => 'A-3', (int) 5 => 'the CPI(ML)', (int) 6 => 'the State of Andhra Pradesh', (int) 7 => 'The First Information Report', (int) 8 => 'A-3', (int) 9 => 'the District Collector', (int) 10 => 'Sections', (int) 11 => 'Designated', (int) 12 => 'PW-2', (int) 13 => 'Counsel', (int) 14 => 'the Central Government', (int) 15 => 'Collector', (int) 16 => 'Tata' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1985', (int) 1 => 'five years', (int) 2 => 'five years', (int) 3 => 'one month', (int) 4 => 'three years'', (int) 5 => 'two years', (int) 6 => '12.1.1986', (int) 7 => 'less than five years', (int) 8 => '5' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Khammam', (int) 1 => 'Sri Kondappali Seetharamaiah', (int) 2 => 'Punchanama' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'the early hours', (int) 1 => 'six hours' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Burhanpuram', (int) 1 => 'Counsel', (int) 2 => 'Counsel' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'A-1' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'PW-4' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'firstly' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '656068', 'acts' => 'Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 - Sections 2, 3, 16 and 18(2); <a href="/act/51076/explosive-substances-act-1908-complete-act">Explosive Substances Act, 1908</a> - Sections 5 and 7; Indian Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25(1);', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 1988', 'appellant' => 'Erram Santosh Reddy and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Erram Santosh Reddy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh', 'casenote' => 'Criminal - Terrorist activities - Sections 3 (1) and 18 (2) of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 5 of Explosives Substances Act, Section 34 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of Arms Act - Appellants were organizing cadre of political party creating terror in people to over-awe Government established by law in State by using fire-arms and bombs - Appellants were surrounded by police party and appellant in retaliation hurled bombs with a view to kill police - A-l was in possession of loaded revolver, A-2 was in possession of one hand-grenade, A-3 to A-5 were in possession of country-made bombs - Appellant found guilty for offence under Sections 307/34 and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment by Designated Judge - Appellant also found guilty of offence under Section 5 of Explosives Substances Act and A-1 also convicted for offence under Section 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act - Hence, present appeal - Appellant contended that their act did not come within meaning of terrorist Act as defined under Section 3 (1) - Further contended that bomb thrown did not cause any injury to any people and thus their act would not come within meaning of terrorist - Further alleged delay in lodging of FIR - Further alleged that no sanction was taken for prosecuting appellants for offence under Section 7 Explosives Substances Act - Section 3(1) is very wide and covers any act which strikes terror in the people or Section of the people would attract the said provisions - Facts revealed that appellants were armed with fire-arms as well as explosive substance and also hurled a bomb on the police who were in the premises would go to show that the offence of the appellant was to strike terror in the people or a section of the people including the police - Hurling bomb at the police and other literature recovered from their possession in addition would show that they were indulging in 'terrorist acts' and therefore accordingly they come within the meaning of the word 'terrorist' - Facts revealed that Collector had granted permission and this was in pursuant to delegation of powers as contemplated under Section 18 (2) - Appeal dismissed - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890 Sections 300, 304 Part II & 326: [S.B.Sinha & Asok Kumar Ganguly,JJ] Murder -Accused-appellant and his associate asked deceased to come out of cinema hall - Started quarrelling with deceased on his coming out - Appellant struck blow with knife on back of deceased - Injury was deep and ruptured kidney -Facts not disclosing sudden provocation Commission of offence proved by witnesses -Dying declaration found to be reliable -Held, It is not a case which attracts provisions of Section 304, Part II or Section 326. Conviction of accused under Section 302 is not liable to be interfered with. - That being so the ingredients of Section 2(f) as well as 3(1) are attracted. The fact that the appellants were armed with the fire-arms as well as explosive substance and also hurled a bomb on the police who were in the premises would go to show that the offence of the appellant was to strike terror in the people or a section of the people including the police. Therefore, the meaning of the 'terrorist' has to be gathered from Section 3(1). That being so the facts established by the prosecution would go to show that these appellants were armed with the fire-arms as well as explosives, come within the meaning of 'terrorist'.Hurling the bomb at the police and other literature recovered from their possession in addition would show that they were indulging in 'terrorist acts' and therefore, accordingly they come within the meaning of the word 'terrorist'.6. Yet another submission by the learned Counsel is that there is delay of six hours in lodging the report.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Supreme Court of India', 'court_type' => 'SC', 'decidedon' => '1991-01-08', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'S.R. Pandian; and K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed under Section 16 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (for short 'Tata') against the judgment of the Designated Court, Khammam. The appellants were found guilty under Section 307 read with Section 34 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and under Sections 3 and 3(2)(ii) of the 'Tata' for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each for the above offence in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. They were also convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. A- l is also convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment for the offences under Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act. The prosecution case is as follows. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These appellants along with another accused A-3 were tried for the above said offence. It is alleged that all these accused are the organising cadre of the CPI(ML) Group lead by Sri Kondappali Seetharamaiah, creating terror in the people with the intention to over-awe the Government established by law in the State of Andhra Pradesh by using fire-arms, bombs etc. and they were involved in number of cases. On 12.1.1986 in the early hours the Inspector of police, PW-5, on receiving credible information that A-1, who had gone underground, is organising his party to commit terrorist acts and disruptive activities in a house rented by A-3 at Burhanpuram locality, raided the premises. Observing that the appellants have been surrounded by the police party, A-1 to A-5, who were in the house, hurled a bomb with a view to kill the police. Then PW-5 gave a warning and the accused surrendered and from them several arms and other explosives were recovered. Punchanama was duly prepared in the presence of panch-witnesses. A- l was in possession of loaded revolver, A- 2 was in possession of one hand-grenade, A-3 to A-5 were in possession of country-made bombs. The First Information Report was lodged and a case was duly registered in the above -said offences. During the investigation it was established that the premises was taken on lease by A-3 and the other four accused A-1, A-2 and A- 4 and A-5 were residing therein. After obtaining the sanction from the District Collector, under Section 8 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act, the charge-sheet was laid. The charges under the above Sections were framed and in support of its case the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-6. The accused when examined under Section 313 denied the case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The evidence for the prosecution mainly consists of the persons who conducted the raid namely PW-1 and PW-5, PW-2 the owner of the premises, having supported the prosecution in his earlier statement, turned hostile. PW-3 and PW-4 are the other material witnesses. The learned Designated Judge accepting the evidence of PWs-1, 3 and 5 reached the conclusion that during the raid the police recovered the fire-arms and explosive substance from the possession of the appellants. A-3 was, however, acquitted on the ground that he was Only a tenant and case against him was not established. With the circumstances PW-2, the landlord, himself turned hostile. The learned Designated Judge concluded that the evidence of PW-5 coupled with the evidence of PW-1 establish the prosecution case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this appeal the learned Counsel firstly submitted that the acts alleged to have been committed by the appellants did not come within the meaning of terrorist act as defined under Section 3(1). He submits that no section of people were terrorised nor any one of them in the locality was injured because of the hurling of the bomb and that the prosecution did not establish that the appellants acted in a manner with such intention as mentioned in Section 3 and they do not come within the meaning of the word 'terrorist'. Section 2(f) of the Act defines the 'terrorist act' and lays down that the expression is the meaning assigned to it under Sub-section (1) to Section 3 and that expression 'terrorist' (Terrorist) shall be construed accordingly. Section 3 lays down that 'whoever with intent to overawe the Government as by law established or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people, does any act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances arid fire arms etc., it is terrorist act. Section 3(2), however, lays that whoever commits a terrorist act shall, if such act has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death and in any other case be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to term of life and shall also be liable to fine. For all purposes it may be necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 4. We may at this stage point but that we have carefully gone through the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 5 and it is established that the police party raided the premises and that one of the appellants hurdled bomb on them. Whe the appellants surrendered, fire-arms and explosives substance were recovered from them. That being so the ingredients of Section 2(f) as well as 3(1) are attracted. Section 3(1) is very wide and covers any act which strikes terror in the people or section of the people would attract the said provisions. The fact that the appellants were armed with the fire-arms as well as explosive substance and also hurled a bomb on the police who were in the premises would go to show that the offence of the appellant was to strike terror in the people or a section of the people including the police. Thereafter, we are unable to agree with the learned Counsel in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The next submission of the learned Counsel is that hurling of the bomb has not caused any injury to any one and that being so act committed by the appellants will not bring them within the meaning of the terrorist. It must be remembered that Section 2(f) lays down that the 'terrorist act' is within the meaning of Sub-section (1) to Section 3 and expression 'terrorist' shall be construed accordingly. Therefore, the meaning of the 'terrorist' has to be gathered from Section 3(1). That being so the facts established by the prosecution would go to show that these appellants were armed with the fire-arms as well as explosives, come within the meaning of 'terrorist'. Hurling the bomb at the police and other literature recovered from their possession in addition would show that they were indulging in 'terrorist acts' and therefore, accordingly they come within the meaning of the word 'terrorist'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Yet another submission by the learned Counsel is that there is delay of six hours in lodging the report. We are unable to see as to how this delay would in any manner affect the prosecution case. After raiding, the recoveries were effected and thereafter a report was lodged in the concerned police station. Under these circumstances we do not think that the delay in any manner warrants any adverse inference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The last submission is that no sanction was obtained from the Central Government as laid down under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act for prosecuting the appellants for the offences under the Explosive Substances Act. From the judgment we do not find that any such objection was taken. In any event from the record we find that the Collector granted permission and this must be pursuant to the delegation of powers as contemplated under Section 18(2) of the 'Tata'. Therefore, for the above reasons we see no merits in any one of the submissions. With the result the appeal is dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1991SC1672; 1991CriLJ2189; 1991(2)Crimes671(SC); 1991(1)SCALE846; (1991)3SCC206; 1991(2)LC522(SC)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Andhra Pradesh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '656068' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Erram Santosh Reddy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 16', (int) 1 => 'Section 307', (int) 2 => 'Section 34', (int) 3 => 'Section 5', (int) 4 => 'the Explosive Substances Act', (int) 5 => 'Section 25(1)(a', (int) 6 => 'the Indian Arms Act', (int) 7 => 'Section 8', (int) 8 => 'the Explosive Substances Act and Section', (int) 9 => 'the Indian Arms Act', (int) 10 => 'Section 313', (int) 11 => 'Section 3', (int) 12 => 'Section 3', (int) 13 => 'Section 3', (int) 14 => 'Section 4', (int) 15 => 'Section 2(f', (int) 16 => 'Section 2(f', (int) 17 => 'Section 3', (int) 18 => 'Section 7', (int) 19 => 'the Explosive Substances Act', (int) 20 => 'the Explosive Substances Act', (int) 21 => 'Section 18(2' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => 'one', (int) 3 => 'four', (int) 4 => '3.', (int) 5 => '3', (int) 6 => '5', (int) 7 => '4.', (int) 8 => 'one', (int) 9 => '1', (int) 10 => '2', (int) 11 => '1', (int) 12 => '6' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Terrorist' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Disruptive Activities', (int) 1 => 'Tata', (int) 2 => 'the Designated Court', (int) 3 => 'Tata', (int) 4 => 'A-3', (int) 5 => 'the CPI(ML)', (int) 6 => 'the State of Andhra Pradesh', (int) 7 => 'The First Information Report', (int) 8 => 'A-3', (int) 9 => 'the District Collector', (int) 10 => 'Sections', (int) 11 => 'Designated', (int) 12 => 'PW-2', (int) 13 => 'Counsel', (int) 14 => 'the Central Government', (int) 15 => 'Collector', (int) 16 => 'Tata' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1985', (int) 1 => 'five years', (int) 2 => 'five years', (int) 3 => 'one month', (int) 4 => 'three years'', (int) 5 => 'two years', (int) 6 => '12.1.1986', (int) 7 => 'less than five years', (int) 8 => '5' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Khammam', (int) 1 => 'Sri Kondappali Seetharamaiah', (int) 2 => 'Punchanama' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'the early hours', (int) 1 => 'six hours' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Burhanpuram', (int) 1 => 'Counsel', (int) 2 => 'Counsel' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'A-1' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'PW-4' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'firstly' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '656068', 'acts' => 'Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 - Sections 2, 3, 16 and 18(2); <a href="/act/51076/explosive-substances-act-1908-complete-act">Explosive Substances Act, 1908</a> - Sections 5 and 7; Indian Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25(1);', 'appealno' => 'Criminal Appeal No. 292 of 1988', 'appellant' => 'Erram Santosh Reddy and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Erram Santosh Reddy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh', 'casenote' => 'Criminal - Terrorist activities - Sections 3 (1) and 18 (2) of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 5 of Explosives Substances Act, Section 34 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of Arms Act - Appellants were organizing cadre of political party creating terror in people to over-awe Government established by law in State by using fire-arms and bombs - Appellants were surrounded by police party and appellant in retaliation hurled bombs with a view to kill police - A-l was in possession of loaded revolver, A-2 was in possession of one hand-grenade, A-3 to A-5 were in possession of country-made bombs - Appellant found guilty for offence under Sections 307/34 and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment by Designated Judge - Appellant also found guilty of offence under Section 5 of Explosives Substances Act and A-1 also convicted for offence under Section 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act - Hence, present appeal - Appellant contended that their act did not come within meaning of terrorist Act as defined under Section 3 (1) - Further contended that bomb thrown did not cause any injury to any people and thus their act would not come within meaning of terrorist - Further alleged delay in lodging of FIR - Further alleged that no sanction was taken for prosecuting appellants for offence under Section 7 Explosives Substances Act - Section 3(1) is very wide and covers any act which strikes terror in the people or Section of the people would attract the said provisions - Facts revealed that appellants were armed with fire-arms as well as explosive substance and also hurled a bomb on the police who were in the premises would go to show that the offence of the appellant was to strike terror in the people or a section of the people including the police - Hurling bomb at the police and other literature recovered from their possession in addition would show that they were indulging in 'terrorist acts' and therefore accordingly they come within the meaning of the word 'terrorist' - Facts revealed that Collector had granted permission and this was in pursuant to delegation of powers as contemplated under Section 18 (2) - Appeal dismissed - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890 Sections 300, 304 Part II & 326: [S.B.Sinha & Asok Kumar Ganguly,JJ] Murder -Accused-appellant and his associate asked deceased to come out of cinema hall - Started quarrelling with deceased on his coming out - Appellant struck blow with knife on back of deceased - Injury was deep and ruptured kidney -Facts not disclosing sudden provocation Commission of offence proved by witnesses -Dying declaration found to be reliable -Held, It is not a case which attracts provisions of Section 304, Part II or Section 326. Conviction of accused under Section 302 is not liable to be interfered with. - That being so the ingredients of Section 2(f) as well as 3(1) are attracted. The fact that the appellants were armed with the fire-arms as well as explosive substance and also hurled a bomb on the police who were in the premises would go to show that the offence of the appellant was to strike terror in the people or a section of the people including the police. Therefore, the meaning of the 'terrorist' has to be gathered from Section 3(1). That being so the facts established by the prosecution would go to show that these appellants were armed with the fire-arms as well as explosives, come within the meaning of 'terrorist'.Hurling the bomb at the police and other literature recovered from their possession in addition would show that they were indulging in 'terrorist acts' and therefore, accordingly they come within the meaning of the word 'terrorist'.6. Yet another submission by the learned Counsel is that there is delay of six hours in lodging the report.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Supreme Court of India', 'court_type' => 'SC', 'decidedon' => '1991-01-08', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'S.R. Pandian; and K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is filed under Section 16 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (for short 'Tata') against the judgment of the Designated Court, Khammam. The appellants were found guilty under Section 307 read with Section 34 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and under Sections 3 and 3(2)(ii) of the 'Tata' for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each for the above offence in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. They were also convicted under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. A- l is also convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment for the offences under Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act. The prosecution case is as follows. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. These appellants along with another accused A-3 were tried for the above said offence. It is alleged that all these accused are the organising cadre of the CPI(ML) Group lead by Sri Kondappali Seetharamaiah, creating terror in the people with the intention to over-awe the Government established by law in the State of Andhra Pradesh by using fire-arms, bombs etc. and they were involved in number of cases. On 12.1.1986 in the early hours the Inspector of police, PW-5, on receiving credible information that A-1, who had gone underground, is organising his party to commit terrorist acts and disruptive activities in a house rented by A-3 at Burhanpuram locality, raided the premises. Observing that the appellants have been surrounded by the police party, A-1 to A-5, who were in the house, hurled a bomb with a view to kill the police. Then PW-5 gave a warning and the accused surrendered and from them several arms and other explosives were recovered. Punchanama was duly prepared in the presence of panch-witnesses. A- l was in possession of loaded revolver, A- 2 was in possession of one hand-grenade, A-3 to A-5 were in possession of country-made bombs. The First Information Report was lodged and a case was duly registered in the above -said offences. During the investigation it was established that the premises was taken on lease by A-3 and the other four accused A-1, A-2 and A- 4 and A-5 were residing therein. After obtaining the sanction from the District Collector, under Section 8 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act, the charge-sheet was laid. The charges under the above Sections were framed and in support of its case the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-6. The accused when examined under Section 313 denied the case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The evidence for the prosecution mainly consists of the persons who conducted the raid namely PW-1 and PW-5, PW-2 the owner of the premises, having supported the prosecution in his earlier statement, turned hostile. PW-3 and PW-4 are the other material witnesses. The learned Designated Judge accepting the evidence of PWs-1, 3 and 5 reached the conclusion that during the raid the police recovered the fire-arms and explosive substance from the possession of the appellants. A-3 was, however, acquitted on the ground that he was Only a tenant and case against him was not established. With the circumstances PW-2, the landlord, himself turned hostile. The learned Designated Judge concluded that the evidence of PW-5 coupled with the evidence of PW-1 establish the prosecution case. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In this appeal the learned Counsel firstly submitted that the acts alleged to have been committed by the appellants did not come within the meaning of terrorist act as defined under Section 3(1). He submits that no section of people were terrorised nor any one of them in the locality was injured because of the hurling of the bomb and that the prosecution did not establish that the appellants acted in a manner with such intention as mentioned in Section 3 and they do not come within the meaning of the word 'terrorist'. Section 2(f) of the Act defines the 'terrorist act' and lays down that the expression is the meaning assigned to it under Sub-section (1) to Section 3 and that expression 'terrorist' (Terrorist) shall be construed accordingly. Section 3 lays down that 'whoever with intent to overawe the Government as by law established or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people, does any act or thing by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances arid fire arms etc., it is terrorist act. Section 3(2), however, lays that whoever commits a terrorist act shall, if such act has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death and in any other case be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to term of life and shall also be liable to fine. For all purposes it may be necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 4. We may at this stage point but that we have carefully gone through the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 5 and it is established that the police party raided the premises and that one of the appellants hurdled bomb on them. Whe the appellants surrendered, fire-arms and explosives substance were recovered from them. That being so the ingredients of Section 2(f) as well as 3(1) are attracted. Section 3(1) is very wide and covers any act which strikes terror in the people or section of the people would attract the said provisions. The fact that the appellants were armed with the fire-arms as well as explosive substance and also hurled a bomb on the police who were in the premises would go to show that the offence of the appellant was to strike terror in the people or a section of the people including the police. Thereafter, we are unable to agree with the learned Counsel in this regard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The next submission of the learned Counsel is that hurling of the bomb has not caused any injury to any one and that being so act committed by the appellants will not bring them within the meaning of the terrorist. It must be remembered that Section 2(f) lays down that the 'terrorist act' is within the meaning of Sub-section (1) to Section 3 and expression 'terrorist' shall be construed accordingly. Therefore, the meaning of the 'terrorist' has to be gathered from Section 3(1). That being so the facts established by the prosecution would go to show that these appellants were armed with the fire-arms as well as explosives, come within the meaning of 'terrorist'. Hurling the bomb at the police and other literature recovered from their possession in addition would show that they were indulging in 'terrorist acts' and therefore, accordingly they come within the meaning of the word 'terrorist'. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Yet another submission by the learned Counsel is that there is delay of six hours in lodging the report. We are unable to see as to how this delay would in any manner affect the prosecution case. After raiding, the recoveries were effected and thereafter a report was lodged in the concerned police station. Under these circumstances we do not think that the delay in any manner warrants any adverse inference.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The last submission is that no sanction was obtained from the Central Government as laid down under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act for prosecuting the appellants for the offences under the Explosive Substances Act. From the judgment we do not find that any such objection was taken. In any event from the record we find that the Collector granted permission and this must be pursuant to the delegation of powers as contemplated under Section 18(2) of the 'Tata'. Therefore, for the above reasons we see no merits in any one of the submissions. With the result the appeal is dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1991SC1672; 1991CriLJ2189; 1991(2)Crimes671(SC); 1991(1)SCALE846; (1991)3SCC206; 1991(2)LC522(SC)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Andhra Pradesh', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '656068' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Section 16, Section 307, Section 34, Section 5, the Explosive Substances Act, Section 25(1)(a, the Indian Arms Act, Section 8, the Explosive Substances Act and Section, the Indian Arms Act, Section 313, Section 3, Section 3, Section 3, Section 4, Section 2(f, Section 2(f, Section 3, Section 7, the Explosive Substances Act, the Explosive Substances Act, Section 18(2
CARDINAL: 1, 2, one, four, 3., 3, 5, 4., one, 1, 2, 1, 6
NORP: Terrorist
ORG: Disruptive Activities, Tata, the Designated Court, Tata, A-3, the CPI(ML), the State of Andhra Pradesh, The First Information Report, A-3, the District Collector, Sections, Designated, PW-2, Counsel, the Central Government, Collector, Tata
DATE: 1985, five years, five years, one month, three years', two years, 12.1.1986, less than five years, 5
PERSON: Khammam, Sri Kondappali Seetharamaiah, Punchanama
TIME: the early hours, six hours
GPE: Burhanpuram, Counsel, Counsel
PRODUCT: A-1
FAC: PW-4
ORDINAL: firstly