ANIL @ ANDYA SADASHIV NANDOSKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 807 · Decided: 19-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

ANIL.@ ANDY A SADASHIV NANDOSKAR 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
FEBRUARY 19, 1996 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ] 
Criminal Law : 
A 
B 
Terrorist and Disrnptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: Section 5-
Unauthorised possession of ann and ammunitiort-l'roof of-Search and C 
seizure of weapons from accused-Prosecution witnesses-Evidence 
of~ogent and tntstworthy-Witnesses being police officials-Did not by itself 
create doubt about their credit worthiness-Independent panch wit-
nesses-Non examination of-Satisfactorily explained-Recovered ar-
ticles-Despatch of for examination-Mere delay of 15 days-Not 
fatal-Conviction proper. 
D 
Possession of both ann and ammunition-Not necessary to estab-
lish-Possession of either sufficient-Recovered cartridges-"Working 
status''-Expert opinion absence of~ould not militate against conviction of 
the accused for an offence under Section 5-Anns Act, 1959. 
E 
The appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 5 of the 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 read with Sec-
tions 3(1) and 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo 
rigorous imprisonment for five years. 
F 
According to the Prosecution Case prior information received by 
PW. 2 that the appellant, who was a wanted criminal, was likely to visit a 
hotel, the police officials proceeded to the hotel. As soon as the appellant 
entered the hotel, he was over-powered by PW. 1 who took him in his 
clutches. Two panchas from the public were joined and in their presence, G 
from the personal search of the appellant, country-made revolver loaded 
with two live cartridges and currency notes were recovered by PW. 1 with 
the assistance of PW. 5. A panchnama was prepared and the articles seized 
and sealed at the spot. The appellant was arrested and the police party 
took him to police station, where formal First InfQrmation Report was 
registered. The sealed parcels containing the country-made revolver and H 
807 
808 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
the cartridges· was carried by 11\\'.'· 6 to the Forensic Science Laboratory. 
B 
The ballistic expert subsequently submitted his report according to which 
the recovered revolver was found to be in a working condition. The appel-
lant possessed no licence for the revolver found ~n his possession and 
could not explain the possession of the unlawful arm and ammunition. The 
area, where the Hotel was situate, had been declared a notified area under 
TADA. The appellant after completion of investigation, was se~t up for 
trial. 
On the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the. prosecution 
including that of PWs. 1 to 6 the Designated Court came to the conclusion 
C that the charges levelled against the appellant were fully established. 
In appeal befor this Court, on behalf of the appellant it was con-
tended that search and seizure of the revolver and cartridges had not been 
established by the prosecution by adducing any independent evidence; that 
the non-examination of the two independent panchas was a serious lacuna 
D detracting from the reliability of the prosecution case; that there was ~ 
serious contradiction in the evidence of PW. 2 and PW. 4 regarding the 
signature of the witnesses on the label on the revolver which rendered the 
entire search and seizure doubtful; that the delay in sending the fire arm 
and the cartridges to the Ballistic Expert rendered his report vulnerable; 
E and that in the absence of any clear opinion of the Ballistic Expert in his 
report regarding the 'working status' of the two live cartridges, the convic-
tion of the appellant could not be sustained. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
p 
HELD : 1.1. There is no rule oflaw that the evidence of police officials 
has to be discarded or that it sutlers from some inherent infirmity. 
Prudence, however, requires that the evidence of the police officers, who are 
interested in the outcome of the result of the case, needs to be carefully 
scrutinised and independently appreciated. The police officials do not suf-
fer from any disability to give evidence and the mere fact that they are police 
G officials does not by itself give rise to any doubt about their creditworthi-
ness. The evidence of all the 5 police officials has been carefully and critical-
ly analysed. There is nothing on the record to show that any one of them was 
hostile to the appellant, and despite lengthy cross-examination their 
evidence has remained unshaken through

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