http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MANORANJAN SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF DELHI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/02/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, S.P. KURDUKAR.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Nanavati, J.      This appeal  is directed against the judgment and order passed by  the Additional judge, Designated Court, Delhi, in Sessions case  No. 149/93  (arising from  FIR No.  190/93 of Tilak  Nagar   Police  Station).    The  learned  Judge  had convicted the  appellant under Section 5 of the TADA Act and also under  Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. For the  offence punishable under Section 5 of the TADA Act, the  appellant   has  been   sentenced  to  suffer  rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. For the  offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act,  he has  been sentenced  to suffer  rigorous imprisonment for three years.      It  was  the  prosecution  case  that  the  police  had information that some terrorists of Punjab were to carry out explosions in  various parts  of Delhi  and therefore,  they were keeping  a watch  at Vishnu  Garden, Rajouri Garden and Tilak Nagar.  A watch  was also  kept on  appellant who  was residing in  a house  bearing No. F-167, near Vishnu Garden, as some  unknown persons  were seen  visiting his  house. On 6.4.93, the police party consisting of Inspector Babu Singh, Inspector  Nand   Kishore  and  Sub-Inspector  Satish  Kumar decided to  raid the  premises in  which they suspected that explosive material  was kept.  They, therefore,  went to the house of  the appellant  and took  him to  the office of the Operation  Cell  in  Lodhi  Colony  for  interrogation.  The appellant made  a disclosure  statement that  Joginder Singh with whom  he had  good contacts  had taken  a house on rent bearing No.  C-44, near Vishnu Garden and they had kept some explosive material  in that  room. It  was opened  by a keep which was with the appellant. The appellant then pointed out a raxine  bag containing  one dalda tin containing 2 Kgs. of RDX and  one timer device. All these articles were seized by the police;  and, after competing the investigation, charge- sheet was filed against the appellant and two other, namely, Gurmeet Singh  and Joginder Singh. As Joginder Singh was not traced, the  trial proceeded  against Manoranjan  Singh  and Gurmeet Singh. The trial court acquitted Gurmeet Singh as it was not  proved that  he had taken that room on lease and as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

in possession  of it.  The trial court believed the evidence of PW  1- Babu  Singh. PW7 - Nand Kishore and PW 12 - Satish Kumar  and   held  that   the  appellant  was  in  conscious possession of  the RDX  recovered from  that room. The trial court also  believed that the said RDX was  recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the appellant. The appellant was, therefore, convicted as stated above.      It  was  contended  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the appellant that  the trial court committed a grave illegality in relying  upon the  disclosure statement  alleged to  have been made  by the  appellant as  the   appellant was  not an ‘accused’ when  he had  made that  statement nor  was he  in custody of  police when  he made  that alleged statement. We find that  no offence  was registered  against the appellant when he  was taken  to the  police station for interrogation nor was  any accusation  made against  him. He  was  not  in custody of the police when he made the disclosure statement. The learned  counsel is,  therefore, right in his submission that Section 27 was not applicable in this case and recovery should not  have been  treated as  having been  made on  the basis of the disclosure statement of the appellant.      But,   we see  no reason  to disbelieve the evidence of the said  three witnesses who have categorically stated that the key  was produced  by the appellant and with it the lock of that room was opened. The witnesses have also stated that after opening  the room  the accused  had  pointed  out  the raxine bag  containing dalda  tin from  which RDX was found. From this  evidence. We  are of  the view that the appellant was rightly  convicted by  the trial court. Hence, we see no reason to  differ from  the findings  recorded  by the trial courts.      We, therefore, maintain the conviction of the appellant and also  the substantive  sentence of  imprisonment imposed upon him. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case.  We set  aside the  sentence of  fine. Subject to this small  modification in  the  order  of  sentence,  this appeal is dismissed.