State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Kiran
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 1995
Petitioner: State of Tamil Nadu
Respondent: Kiran
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 1995
Judges: M.B. SHAH & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 31, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
Sections 3 and 5 – Offences – Acquittal of accused by Designated Court – Appeal by State – Court issuing notice to respondent by State failing to serve notice on respondent – State also failing to trace respondent – State informing Court during hearing that respondent was likely to be in LTTE controlled area. Held, in such circumstances no purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending. Further, Designated Court having recorded that the respondent was not found in possession of arms and ammunition within the territorial waters in India, appeal directed to be dismissed as the State had also failed to serve the notice of appeal on the respondent.
(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. By judgment and order dated 26th July, 1994, the respondent was acquitted in respect of offences under Sections 3(3) and 5 of TADA Act, 1987 and also under the Arms Act. Against that judgment and order, the State has preferred this appeal. This Court had issued notice to the respondent, but the State authorities have failed to serve the notice on him. On 27th April 2000, the appellant was given
last opportunity to trace out the respondent. It was also stated that if the State fails to trace out the respondent even utilising the last opportunity, the Court may decide regarding the next appropriate steps to be taken.
2. Today at the time of hearing of the matter, the learned Counsel for the appellant has produced on record a letter dated 18th August, 2000 written by the Special Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu to the learned Advocate-on-record stating that according to information, respondent was likely to be in LTTE controlled areas. Copy of the letter be kept on record.
3. In our view, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this appeal pending. The appeal was filed in 1995 and notice was issued by this Court on 16.2.1996, yet the appellant has failed to serve notice on the respondent. Finally, it is stated that the respondent was likely to be in the LTTE controlled areas. The Designated Court has given findings that the respondent was not found in possession of arms and ammunition within the territorial waters of Indian and for that purpose the Court has appreciated the evidence of PW5 and PW2. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
1. By judgment and order dated 26th July, 1994, the respondent was acquitted in respect of offences under Sections 3(3) and 5 of TADA Act, 1987 and also under the Arms Act. Against that judgment and order, the State has preferred this appeal. This Court had issued notice to the respondent, but the State authorities have failed to serve the notice on him. On 27th April 2000, the appellant was given
last opportunity to trace out the respondent. It was also stated that if the State fails to trace out the respondent even utilising the last opportunity, the Court may decide regarding the next appropriate steps to be taken.
2. Today at the time of hearing of the matter, the learned Counsel for the appellant has produced on record a letter dated 18th August, 2000 written by the Special Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu to the learned Advocate-on-record stating that according to information, respondent was likely to be in LTTE controlled areas. Copy of the letter be kept on record.
3. In our view, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this appeal pending. The appeal was filed in 1995 and notice was issued by this Court on 16.2.1996, yet the appellant has failed to serve notice on the respondent. Finally, it is stated that the respondent was likely to be in the LTTE controlled areas. The Designated Court has given findings that the respondent was not found in possession of arms and ammunition within the territorial waters of Indian and for that purpose the Court has appreciated the evidence of PW5 and PW2. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
