Special Leave Petition Civil No 5775 of 1990
From the Judgment and Order dated 30111989 of the Allahabad High Court in C Misc
WP No 2431 of 1989
737 Dr LM Singhvi and Pramod Dayal for the Petitioners
TS Krishnamoorthy lyer and DM Nargolkar for the Respondents
The following Order of the Court was delivered On the facts and circumstances of the case including the facts set out in the counter affidavit filed by RB Sahi we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Allahabad High Court
Very briefly stated respondent No 1 is the owner of a Petrol Pump which is set up on a site in Dehradun of which respondent No 1 is the lessee
The No Objection Certifi cate  granted for conducting the said Petrol Pumpwas can celled by respondent No 5 the District Magistiate of Dehradun and that order was upheld by the Commissioner
The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court by the impugned judgment set aside the order of the Commissioner
The spe cial leave petition is directed against the said order as we have already observed we see no reason to interfere with the actual order passed by the Division Bench but we would like to make a clarification regarding the interpretation of Rule 151 of the Rules framed in 1976 under the Petroleum Act
Rule 144 of the said Rules deals with the issue of a No Objection Certificate  for a new license for running a Petrol Pump
Rule 151 deals with the cancellation of the No Objection Certificate  and the said rule reads as follows 1 A no objection certificate granted under Rule 144 shall be liable to be cancelled by the District Authority or the State Government if the District Authority or the State Government is satisfied that the licensee has ceased to have any right to use the site for storing petrol Provided that before cancelling a no objection certificate the licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard
2 A District Authority or a State Government cancelling a no objection certificate shall record in writing the reasons for such cancellation and shall immediately furnish to the licen 738 see and to the licensing authority concerned a copy of the order cancelling the no objection certificate
 The High Court has rightly observed that the District Authority under Rule 151 can cancel the No Objection Certif icate only when the licensee ceases to have any fight to use the site for storing petrol
However there are certain subsequent observations made by the High Court in the im pugned judgment which might lead to an inference that so long as the licensee continues to have lease hold rights on the site the No Objection Certificate  cannot be cancelled at all
That does not appear to be the correct position in law
On a reading of sub rule 1 of Rule 151 it is clear that a No Objection Certificate  granted under Rule 144 can be cancelled wherever the licensee ceases to have any right to use the site for storing petrol and that right could be lost by a licensee either by his tenancy or right to the use of the site coming to an end or for any other reason where by in law the right to use the site for storing petrol ceases
In view of the clarification which we have made Dr Singhvi learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to press the petition
The Special Leave petition is therefore dismissed
NPV Petition dismissed


Summary:
The accused petitioners were charged under section 302 and 307 read with Sections 147 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 37 of the Bombay Police Act 1951
Subsequently they were also charged under section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act
They moved the Designated Court for grant of bail contending that the provisions of the 1987 Act were wrongly and mali ciously invoked and the Designated Court held that section 3 of the Act was inapplicable
The State of Maharashtra has preferred an appeal to this Court against the said order of the Designated Court
Since the accused were directed to approach the regular court they moved bail applications before the Sessions Judge Ahmadnagar which were rejected
Thereafter they approached the High Court and during the pendency of their bail applications before the High Court the prosecution submitted a charge sheet against them in the Designated Court under section 3 of the 1987 Act
Conse quently the High Court rejected their bail applications and the accused again approached the Designated Court for bail
The Designated Court again held that the material 634 placed before it and the statement recorded by the Investi gating Officer did not disclose the commission of an offence under section 3 of the Act
Accordingly it discharged the accused under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and transferred the case to court of Sessions for trial of other offences under the Penal Code and the Bombay Police Act
Against this order of the Designated Court two appeals have been filed in this Court one by the deceased s father and the other by the State
After transfer of their case to the regular court
the accused persons approached the High Court for bail which was rejected
The accused persons have filed a Special Leave Petition in this Court against the High Court s order refusing the bail
Dismissing the appeals and disposing of the petition this Court
HELD 1
A mere statement by the accused persons to the effect that the show of violence would create terror or fear in the minds of the people and none would dare to oppose them cannot constitute an offence under section 31 of the Act
That may indeed be the fail out of the violent act but that cannot be said to be the intention of the perpetrators of the crime
646H 647A 11 While invoking a criminal statute such as the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act1987 the prosecution is duty bound to show from the record of the case and the documents collected in the course of investiga tion that facts emerging therefrom prima facie constitute an offence within the letter of the law
644F 12 In the instant case it is clear from the statement of the accused persons that their intention was to liquidate rivals and thereby achieve the objective of gaining suprema cy in the underworld
The consequence of such violence is bound to cause panic and fear but the intention of commit ting the crime cannot be said to be to strike terror in the people or any section of the people
Therefore the Desig nated Court was fully justified in taking the view that this was a case of inter gang rivalry only and that the material placed on record and the documents relied on did not prima facie disclose the commission of the offence punishable under section 31 of the Act
647D E 2
Section 121 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activi ties Prevention Act 1987 empowers the Designated Court to try any offence punishable under any other statute along with the offence punishable under the Act if the former is connected with the latter
That however does not mean that even when the Designated Court comes to the con 635 clusion that there exists no sufficient ground for framing a charge against the accused under Section 31 of the Act it must proceed to try the accused for the commission of of fences under other statutes
Thai would tantamount to usurp ing jurisdiction
Section 18 therefore in terms provides that where after taking cognizance of any offence the Desig nated Court is of the opinion that the offence is not tri able by it it shall notwithstanding that it has no juris diction to try such offence transfer the case for the trial of such offence to any Court having jurisdiction under the Code Therefore when the Designated Court came to the conclusion that there was no prima facie evidence to frame a charge under section 31 of the Act it was justified in transferring the case to the Court of Sessions which alone had jurisdiction under the Code
The course adopted by the Designated Court in transferring the case to the Sessions Court for trial of offences under other statutes is clearly in keeping with section 18 of the Act
647F H 648A C 3
Statutes which impose a term of imprisonment for what is a criminal offence under the law must be strictly con strued
644C Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon  Ors vs State of Gujrat  referred to
31 When a statute provides special or enhanced punish ments as compared to the punishments prescribed for similar offences under the ordinary penal laws of the country a higher responsibility and duty is cast on the Judge to make sure there exists prima facie evidence for supporting the charge levelled by the prosecution
Therefore
when a law visits a person with serious penal consequences extra care must be taken to ensure that those whom the legislature did not intend cover by the express language of the statute are not roped in by stretching the language of the law
But that does not mean that the judicial officer called upon to decide whether or not a case for flaming a charge under the Act is made out should adopt a negative attitude
He should frame a charge if the prosecution shows that the material placed on record and the documents relied on give rise to a strong suspicion of the accused having committed the crime alleged against him
644G H 645A 4
The Court while considering whether to discharge the accused or to frame a charge against him ie at the stage of sections 227 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face
value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence
Since the Trial Court is 636 at the stage of deciding whether or not there exists suffi cient grounds for framing the charge its enquiry must necessarily be limited to deciding if the facts emerging from the record and documents constitute the offence with which the accused is charged
At that stage it may sift the evidence for that limited purpose but it is not required to marshal the evidence with a view to separating the grain from the chaff
All that it is called upon to consider is whether there is sufficient ground to frame the charge and for this limited purpose it must weigh the material on record as well as the documents relied on by tile prosecu tion
643E 641F G State of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh   Union of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal  Anr  and Supdt  Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal vs Anil Kumar Bhunja  Ors   referred to