LexSANJAY DUTT versus THE STATE THROUGH C.B.I. BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SANJAYDUTI v. THE STATE THROUGH C.B.I. BOMBAY SEPTEMBER 9, 1994 [AM. AHMADI, J.S. VERMA,'P.B. SAWANT, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: A B Section 5--Essential ingredients of and ambit of defence available to C accused-First ingredient-Possession of specified Arms and Ammuni- tion-Held possession means conscious possession and not mere cus- todj-Second ingredient-Possession should be unauthorised i.e. without the authority of law-Third ingredient-Possession of unauthorised arms and . ammunition should be in a notified area-Essence of third ingredient is that D a presumption arises that the weapons were meant for use in terrorist or disruptive act-Held such a presumption is reason¢le and in consonance with the scheme of the Statute but is rebuttable-The extent of burden of proof on the accused to rebut presumption is lighter burden of proving the great probability--// the accused proves non-existing off acts necessary to prove the third ingredient he cannot be prosecuted under section 5 but has to be dealt E with under Section 12-But where prosecution proves the essential ingredients it has to do nothing more and convictions under Section 5 would follow. Expression 'arms and ammunition'-Held these words are not to be read conjuctively. F Section 2( l)(f)-State Government-Power t<;> declare 'notified area'---Manner of exercise of powe,-/leld, must have relation to curb terrorist and disruptive activities. Section 20(4) (bb) and Proviso-Offence punishable under TADA- G Failure to complete Investigation within the specified period-Right of ac- cused to be released on bai1-Held that right accruing to the accused in such a situation is enforceable only prior to the filing of the challenge and does not remain enforceable on challan being filed-After the filing of ch all an bail has to be considered with reference to the merits of the case. H 263 264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A Offence under TADA-Extension of time for investigation of offence- Requirement of notice to the accused-Held written notice is not necessary-- Production of accused at the time when prayer for extension of time is considered by cowt is sufficient. B Section 20(8}-TADA offences-Bail in respect of-£onditions for grant of bail-field valid. Interpretation of Statutes. Penal Statutes-Rule of constntction of-TADA Acl-Constntction C made of provision$ should be purposive so as to promote the obje.ct of the Act. The petitioner, one of the several accused persons in the Bombay Blast case is being tried by the Designated Court, Greater Bombay, for several offences including section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Ac- D tivities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The charge against him was tliat he know- ingly and intentionally procured one AK-56 rifle with ammunition for the purposes of committing terrorist acts. The petitioner's case was that his possession of rifle and ammunition was for self defence on account of ·. various threats to the members of his family, unrelated to any terrorist E activity and, therefore, mere unauthorised possession of the weapons and ammunition by him does not constitute an offence under Section 5 and consequently his case should be dealt with only under the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner's claim to be released on bail was-rejected by the Designated Court against which special leave petitions were filed in this Court. Since certain question involved in these petitions arose in respect of a large F number of persons accused of offences punishable under the Act of 1987, a Division Bench of this Court referred the following questions of law for decisions by a Constitution Bench : 1. The proper construction of Section 5 of the TADA Act indicating G the ingredients of the Offence punishable thereunder and the ambit of the defence available to a persQn accused of that offence;· 2. The proper construction of clause (bb) of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the TADA Act indicating the nature of right of an accused to be released on bail thereunder, on the default to complete investigation H within the time allowed therein; and SANJA Y DUTT v. C.B.I. BOMBAY 265 3. The proper construction and ambit of sub-section (8) of Section A 20 of the TADA Act indicating the scope for bail thereunder. For the petitioner it was contended that (1) the unauthorised con- scious possession of specified arms and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.