Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2005 (11) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2005 (11) TMI 513 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Withdrawal of POTA order by the State Government.
2. Challenge to the POTA Review Committee's order.
3. Grant of bail to accused Akshay Pratap Singh.
4. Request for transfer of cases from U.P. to Delhi.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Withdrawal of POTA order by the State Government:
The writ petitions challenged the withdrawal of the POTA order against the accused by the State Government on 29th August 2003. The court examined the validity of this withdrawal and found that the political changes influenced the decision to revoke the POTA order. The court held that the withdrawal order and the consequential application by the public prosecutor for withdrawing the cases were not sustainable. The court emphasized that the Public Prosecutor must act independently and not under political influence, as established in previous judgments (1983(1) SCC 438, 1980(3) SCC 435, 1996(2) SCC 610, 2002(3) SCC 510).

2. Challenge to the POTA Review Committee's order:
The Special Leave Petition (Crl) 5609 of 2004 challenged the POTA Review Committee's order dated 30.4.2004, which directed the release of the accused under Section 60 of POTA. The court analyzed the provisions of POTA, particularly Sections 3 and 4, and found that the Review Committee had erred in its interpretation. The court held that the possession of hazardous explosive substances and lethal weapons like AK-56 by the accused fell under Section 4(b) of POTA, which does not require the area to be notified. The Review Committee's order was set aside, and the court directed the prosecution of the accused under Section 3(3) and Section 4(b) of POTA, along with other provisions of the Explosive and Arms Act.

3. Grant of bail to accused Akshay Pratap Singh:
The SLP (Crl) 1521 of 2004 challenged the High Court's order granting bail to Akshay Pratap Singh. The court, while dismissing the petition, noted that the accused had already been in detention for a long time and did not interfere with the bail order. However, the court stated that the observations made by the High Court were contrary to its findings.

4. Request for transfer of cases from U.P. to Delhi:
The Transfer Petitions (Crl) Nos. 82-84 of 2004 sought the transfer of cases from the Special Judge, Kanpur Nagar U.P., to the Designated Court in Delhi, citing the likelihood of miscarriage of justice in U.P. due to political influence and threats to witnesses. The court agreed that there was a likelihood of miscarriage of justice and directed the transfer of the cases to a Special Judge in M.P., to be nominated by the Chief Justice.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the POTA Review Committee's order and directing the prosecution of the accused under relevant sections of POTA, the Explosive Act, and the Arms Act. The withdrawal order by the State Government was quashed, and the transfer petitions were allowed to ensure a fair trial.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates