Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a criminal appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 against a conviction recorded by the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Greater Bombay. The appellant had been convicted under Section 5 of TADA read with Section 3(1) and Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment for unauthorised possession of a country-made .32 bore revolver and two live cartridges in a notified area. On 1 April 1992, acting on prior information that the appellant, a wanted criminal, would visit Sanket Hotel in Worli Koliwada, Bombay, a police raiding party from Dadar Police Station apprehended him. Two public panchas, Sanjay Kashinath and Arjun Pedmathali, were joined. In their presence, a country-made revolver loaded with two live cartridges and Rs.1230 in cash were recovered from the appellant's personal search. A panchnama was prepared, articles sealed, and the appellant arrested. An FIR was registered at Dadar Police Station. The sealed parcel containing the revolver and cartridges was deposited in Malkhana and later sent on 16 April 1992 through Police Naik Ravindra Ranganath to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The ballistic expert reported that the revolver was in working condition. The area was notified under TADA. The appellant had no licence for the revolver. The prosecution examined six witnesses, including five members of the raiding party (all police officials) and the carrier. The appellant, in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. The trial court found the police witnesses credible and convicted him. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant raised several contentions: the search and seizure were not established by independent evidence, non-examination of the two panchas was a serious lacuna, there was a contradiction about signatures on labels on the revolver/parcel between PW2 and PW4, delay in sending the firearm to the ballistic expert rendered the expert report unreliable, and the absence of expert opinion on the working status of cartridges made conviction unsound. The Court rejected each argument. It held that there is no rule of law that police officials' evidence must be discarded; rather, it requires careful scrutiny and independent appreciation. The evidence of PW1 to PW5 was found consistent, credible, and unshaken in cross-examination. The non-examination of panch witnesses was not fatal because the prosecution had made diligent efforts to trace and serve them, but they were not found; the report Ext.24 was virtually unchallenged. The alleged contradiction was explained by the different questions asked: one referred to label on the revolver, the other to label on the parcel. The fifteen-day delay in sending the sealed parcel to the ballistic expert was not inordinate or fatal because the Muddemal Register and the carrier's unchallenged testimony established the chain of custody; the expert received the parcel sealed with matching seal. Finally, the Court relied on Sanjay Dutt v. State, JT 1994 (5) SC 540, where the Constitution Bench held that the word 'and' in Section 5 TADA is disjunctive, so unauthorised possession of either arm or ammunition in a notified area attracts the offence. Therefore, the lack of expert opinion on cartridges did not affect conviction when the revolver itself was found in working condition. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and five-year rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Designated Court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Offences under TADA - Unauthorised Possession of Specified Arm in Notified Area - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 5 - The court interpreted Section 5 TADA as requiring only conscious unauthorised possession of either arm or ammunition in a notified area because the word 'and' is disjunctive. The ballistic expert confirmed the revolver was in working condition, so absence of expert opinion on cartridges did not vitiate conviction. Held that conviction under Section 5 TADA was sustainable on proof of possession of the revolver alone (Paras 3-5). B) Criminal Law - Evidence - Appreciation of Police Witness Testimony and Non-Examination of Independent Panch Witnesses - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 - The court rejected the argument that police officials' evidence is inherently infirm and required careful scrutiny; no rule of law mandated its discarding. The prosecution's inability to produce the two panch witnesses was not fatal because diligent efforts to trace them were made and the absence was not due to oblique reasons; the police evidence was found credible and sufficient to establish search, seizure and conscious possession. Held that conviction was not vitiated by non-examination of panch witnesses (Paras 2-4). C) Criminal Law - Search and Seizure - Delay in Sending Sealed Firearm to Forensic Expert - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 - The fifteen-day delay in dispatching the sealed parcel to the ballistic expert was not inordinate or fatal because the chain of custody was established through the Muddemal Register and the carrier's unchallenged evidence, and the expert received the parcel sealed with matching seal. Held that delay did not affect credibility of prosecution case (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 5 of TADA read with Section 3(1) and Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 was sustainable despite non-examination of independent panch witnesses, alleged contradictions in evidence, delay in sending the seized firearm to the ballistic expert, and absence of expert opinion on the working status of the cartridges.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence under Section 5 TADA read with Arms Act upheld. The Supreme Court affirmed the five years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Designated Court.
Law Points
- unauthorised possession of specified arm in notified area
- disjunctive interpretation of 'and'
- police witness credibility
- non-examination of panch witnesses not fatal
- delay in sending sealed articles not fatal
- chain of custody
- expert opinion on cartridges not necessary
