AKMAL AHMAD versus STATE OF DELHI

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 160 · Decided: 24-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS, D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AKMAL AHMAD 
v. 
ST A TE OF DELHI 
MARCH 24, 1999 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS, D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
Passport Act, 1967 : 
Sections 3 & 12 (1 )-Conviction under Section 3 of person in possession 
C of two passports in different names of two different countries-Person not 
trying to depart from India-Held, unless there is departure or at /edst an 
attempt to depart from India, there is no question of invoking Section 3 of 
the Passport Act. 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act Section 5 & 21-
D Applicability of-Person in unauthorised possession of revolver in a 
notified area-Person also punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act 
for the said possession-Held, possession of such arms and ammunitions 
within the notified area attracts the offence under Section 5 of TADAA. 
E 
F 
Appellant was intercepted and searched by police at New Delhi 
Railway Station. A revolver loaded with 6 live cartridges was recovered 
from him. The appellant had no licence or other authorisation for possessing 
the revolver. It was seized and sealed. New Delhi is a notified area as 
contemplated in Section 5 of T ADAA. The appellant was also found to be in 
possession of two passports on which his photographs were affixed. One 
passport issued by Pakistan authorities was in the name of 'S.M.' and the 
other passport issued by Indian authorities was in the name of 'K.M.' resident 
of Kolar District in Karnataka. On being questioned he revealed his name 
as 'S.M.', resident of Karachi in Pakistan. Appellant was arrested and the 
material articles were taken into custody. 
G 
The appellant was charged and tried for offences under Section 12 of 
the Passport Act, 1967 and under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Descriptive 
Activities (Prevention) Act (T ADAA). The Designated Court, convicted him 
of the said offences and sentenced him to imprisonment for 3 months on the 
-
first count and for 5 years on the second count The finding of the Designated 
Court against the appellant was that since his name was shown as K.M. in 
H all other documents and still he obtained a Pakistani passport describing 
160 
AKMAL AHMAD v. STATE OF DELHI 
161 
him as S.M. and had thus contravened clauses (a) & (b) of Section 12 read A 
with Section 3. Against the conviction by the Designated Court, the appellant 
has filed the present appeal under Section 19 of TADAA. 
On behalf of the Appellant it was contended that the offence under 
Sections 12 of the Passport Act was not sustainable as neither of the 
passports seized from him was shown to be forged; that the evidence of the B 
police officers that the appellant was found in possession of the revolver was 
not corroborated by any independent witness; and that even if the appellant 
was found in possession of the revolver he could have been convicted under 
Section 25 of the Arms Act for possession of a fire arm without licence in 
which case the sentence could be reduced to the period which he has already C 
undergone instead of being convicted for a much more serious offence under 
Section 5 of T ADAA. 
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. The only clause in Section 12 (1) of the Passport Act, 1967 D 
which is said to be used against the appellant is clause (a) which refers to 
contravention of Section 3. Departure from India is the point of time envisaged 
in Section 3. Unless there is departure or at last an attempt to depart from 
India, there is no question of invoking Section 3 of the Passport Act. It is 
nobody's case that appellant was trying to depart from India. On the contrary 
the prosecution case is that appellant had just entered the territory of India E 
with the passport issued by Pakistan authorities and visa. He obtained the 
Pakistani passport describing himself as 'S.M' . But that is no concern 
under the Passport Act in force in India. By holding the Pakistani passport, 
appellant has not committed any offence under Section 12 of the Passport 
Act. Hence the conviction of the appellant under the above count is F 
unsustainable. [165-D-G] 
2. It is now well settled that evidence of search or seizure made by the 
police will not become vitiated solely for the reason that the evidence is not 
supported by independent witness. [166-B] 
3. The revolver and the cartridges seized from the appellant fall within 
the ambit of "arms and ·ammunitions" specified in Columns 2 & 3 of Category 
· III of Schedule I to the Arms Rules, 1962. Unauthorised possession of such 
arms and ammunit

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.