CR.A/314/1993 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 314 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= KAUSHIKBHAI RATILAL BHAVSAR - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JM PANCHAL WITH MR JR DAVE for Appellant(s) : 1, MR PD BHATE, APP for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 08/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 26.2.93 rendered by the Designated Court at Ahmedabad under the TADA Act. Though the appellant, CR.A/314/1993 2/4 JUDGMENT original accused was charged with several offences including some of the offences punishable under the TADA Act, he was acquitted in all offences except one under section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned advocate Shri Panchal appearing for Shri J.R.Dave for the appellant, at the outset, pointed out that in view of section 19 of the TADA, the appeal would not be competent as the appellant would have to approach the Apex Court against the judgment of the Designated Court. My attention was drawn to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, reported (1994) 3 SCC 569 wherein the Apex Court made the following observations : “296. This predicament and practical difficulty an aggrieved person has to suffer can be avoided if a person who is tried by the Designated Court for offences under the TADA Act but convicted only under other penal provisions and is acquitted of the offences under the provisions of the TADA, is given the right of preferring an appeal before the next appellate court as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure and if the State prefers an appeal against the acquittal of the offence under the provisions of TADA then it may approach the Supreme Court for withdrawal of the appeal or revision, as the case may be, preferred by such person to the Supreme Court so that both the cases may be heard together. 297. We have adverted to the practical difficulties faced by the aggrieved persons under the appeal provisions and how the same can be removed so that Parliament may take note of them and devise a suitable mode of address by CR.A/314/1993 3/4 JUDGMENT making the necessary amendments in the appeal provisions. This does not however, mean that the existing appeal provisions are constitutionally invalid.” My attention was also drawn to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1996 SC 257 wherein the Apex Court turning down the request of the appellant to transfer the appeal to the High Court in view of conviction of the accused for offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, made the following observations. “21. A bare perusal of the above Section shows that an appeal against the judgment, sentence or order, of the Designated Court (except an interlocutory order) shall lie on facts and on law to the Supreme Court and that no appeal or revision shall lie to any other Court. In the fact of this express provision, there is no scope to urge that the appeal may be transferred to the High Court because of the acquittal of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 3 TADA by us. In a case where the Designated Court finds that no offence under TADA is made out, it is open to the said Court to transfer the case to the regular Criminal Court under Section 18 TADA but once the charge is framed and the case is tried by the Designated Court, an appeal against conviction, sentence or acquittal lies only to the Supreme Court and to no other Court. Under Section 12 of TADA the Designated Court has the jurisdiction not only to try the case under TADA but also to try offences under the Indian Penal Code if the offence under TADA is connected with such other offences.” CR.A/314/1993 4/4 JUDGMENT 3. In view of the above position, the appeal is disposed of as not competent. Bail bond stands cancelled. Appellant however shall have time of eight weeks from today to surrender/enable him to file appeal and seek bail. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)