Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a criminal appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) against the judgment of the Designated Court convicting the appellant under Section 5 TADA for possession of unauthorized arms and ammunition in a notified area. The prosecution case was that on 1 May 1988, ASI Inder Singh received secret information that two boys were standing at a DTC bus stand on G.T. Road with unauthorised arms. After failing to secure public witnesses, the police apprehended the appellant, from whose bag one country-made pistol and three live cartridges were recovered. The recovered items were sealed, a CFSL form was filled, and a rukka was sent for FIR registration. The CFSL report confirmed the pistol was in working order and the cartridges were live, both answering the description of arm and ammunition under the Arms Act. Sanction under Section 39 Arms Act was obtained, but the Metropolitan Magistrate later referred the case to the Designated Court, which took cognizance and framed charges under Section 5 TADA. The appellant pleaded not guilty and was convicted and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The appellant raised four main arguments: first, that the Designated Court could not have taken cognizance merely on transfer by the Sessions Judge without application of mind; second, that cognizance was invalid for non-compliance with Section 20-A TADA regarding prior sanction; third, that there was doubt about identity of case property due to discrepancy in the seal initials ('IAS' vs 'IS') in the statement of PW-3; and fourth, that there was no allegation that the arms were kept for terrorist activities, making conviction under Section 5 TADA untenable. The Court rejected each argument. On cognizance, it held that Section 14(1) TADA allows cognizance on complaint of facts or police report, and the Designated Court's order dated 18 July 1991 showed it applied its mind to the material and found a prima facie case. On Section 20-A, the Court held that the provision was introduced by the 1993 Amendment and had only prospective application, so it did not apply to an occurrence in 1988 and cognizance in 1991. On the seal discrepancy, the Court found it to be a typographical error, as the CFSL report and the seizure memo confirmed the seal was 'IS' and tallied with the specimen. On the substantive offence, the Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Sanjay Dutt v. State, holding that Section 5 TADA requires only possession of a scheduled arm, conscious possession, and possession in a notified area, without need to prove intent for terrorist activities. All three conditions were satisfied. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Cognizance by Designated Court - Section 14(1) TADA permits cognizance on complaint of facts or police report, and assignment by Sessions Judge does not preclude cognizance if court applies mind to material - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 14(1) - The case was received by the Designated Court on assignment by order dated 7.2.1991, but cognizance was taken only after perusal of material and finding of prima facie case under Section 5 TADA by order dated 18.7.1991. Held that cognizance was validly taken on the basis of a complaint of facts which disclosed the commission of an offence under Section 5 TADA, as the Designated Court applied its mind to the record. (Pages 2-3) B) Criminal Law - Sanction under Section 20-A TADA - Section 20-A introduced by Amendment Act, 1993, has prospective application only and does not affect pending cases - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 20-A - Occurrence took place on 1.5.1988 and cognizance was taken in 1991, before Section 20-A came into force on 22.5.1993. Held that Section 20-A had no application to the facts of the case and its provisions cannot invalidate investigation or legal proceedings duly instituted prior to its enactment. (Pages 2-3) C) Criminal Law - Identity of Case Property - Discrepancy in seal initials in witness statement was a typographical error where CFSL report and seizure memo confirmed seal 'IS' - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - The statement of PW-3 mentioned seal 'IAS' but CFSL report and deposition of PW-4 confirmed that parcels were sealed with 'IS', which tallied with specimen seal. Held that the seal used at spot was 'IS' and not 'IAS', and there was no doubt about identity of case property. (Pages 3-4) D) Criminal Law - Ingredients of Offence under Section 5 TADA - Prosecution must establish possession of arm described in Schedule to Arms Act, conscious possession, and possession in notified area; no need to prove intent for terrorist activities - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 5 - The Constitution Bench in Sanjay Dutt v. State held that these three conditions are sufficient. Held that all three conditions were satisfied as one country-made pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from conscious possession of appellant in a notified area, so conviction under Section 5 TADA was proper. (Pages 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Designated Court validly took cognizance under Section 14(1) TADA; Whether Section 20-A TADA applied retrospectively; Whether identity of seized arms and ammunition was established despite seal discrepancy; Whether conviction under Section 5 TADA required proof of intent to use arms for terrorist activities.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
Law Points
- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act
- 1987
- Section 5 requires conscious possession of an arm as described in Arms Act Schedule in notified area
- without need to prove terrorist intent
- Section 14(1) TADA allows cognizance on complaint or police report
- Section 20-A TADA introduced by 1993 Amendment has prospective application only
- seal discrepancy in evidence can be resolved as typographical error when other evidence confirms identity
- conviction under Section 5 TADA upheld on proof of possession in notified area.
