Supreme Court Upholds Conviction of Accused under TADA for Unauthorised Possession of Firearm and Ammunition—Recovered in Notified Area Without Licence. Variance in Weapon Description as AK-47 or AK-56 Did Not Affect Identity Because Rifle Number Matched and CFSL Report Confirmed It as an Arm.

Criminal appeal under Section 19 of TADA against conviction under Section 5 TADA for unauthorised possession of arms and ammunition in a notified area.

Appellant sought acquittal on grounds of variance in weapon description and non-examination of independent witnesses; alternatively sought reduction of sentence.

Appellant was aggrieved by conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on 14 February 1996 under Section 5 of TADA.

Convicted by the trial court on 14 February 1996 under Section 5 of TADA and sentenced to eight years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000 and default simple imprisonment for six months.

Whether variance in description of recovered rifle as AK-47 or AK-56 created doubt about identity and prejudiced the accused under Section 313 CrPC. Whether non-examination of independent witnesses rendered the prosecution case doubtful. Whether prosecution established conscious unauthorised possession in a notified area as required under Section 5 TADA. Whether recovery of 161 live cartridges alone attracted Section 5 TADA despite conjunctive reading of "arms and ammunitions". Whether sentence of eight years was excessive considering the appellant's age.

Appellant argued serious flaw in prosecution case due to variance in weapon description as AK-47 by PW1 and AK-56 by PW7 and in Section 313 statement, rendering weapon identity doubtful. Appellant contended that prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses though many were present at the park, making police witnesses interested and case doubtful. State relied on consistent recovery evidence, CFSL corroboration, and statutory presumption under Sanjay Dutt requiring no further nexus with terrorist activity. State submitted that expression "arms and ammunitions" in Section 5 TADA must be read disjunctively and possession of live cartridges alone was sufficient.

For an offence under Section 5 TADA, prosecution must prove conscious unauthorised possession in a notified area of specified arms or ammunition; no further nexus with terrorist or disruptive activity is required due to statutory presumption. The expression "arms and ammunitions" must be read disjunctively. Discrepancy in weapon description is immaterial when identity is established by serial number and forensic report. Police witnesses' testimony can be accepted if credible and corroborated, even without independent witnesses.

The rifle which was recovered from the appellant bore No.516275. All the ingredients essential for proving of an offence under section 5 of TADA stand established in the case and his conviction is well merited. The recovery by itself would attract the provisions of Section 5 of TADA. It would meet the ends of Justice if the substantive sentence of the appellant is reduced from 8 years rigorous imprisonment to six years rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the sentence of fine and the punishment in default thereof.

On 6 April 1992, appellant was apprehended and rifle bearing No.516275 with two magazines and 161 live cartridges was recovered. Investigation completed; prosecution examined nine witnesses and relied on CFSL reports and documents. Trial court convicted and sentenced appellant on 14 February 1996 under Section 5 TADA. Appellant filed appeal under Section 19 TADA before Supreme Court. Supreme Court heard appeal and delivered judgment on 26 September 1996, upholding conviction but reducing sentence.

• Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: Section 5, Section 19
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 313
• Arms Act, 1959:
• Arms Rules, 1962: Schedule I, Category I, Category III(a)