LexSTATE OF TAMIL NADU versus SIVARASAN @RAGHU @SIVARASA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
v.
SIV ARASAN @ RAGHU
@ SIV ARASA AND ORS.
OCTOBER 31, 1996.
[G.N. RAY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
Criminal Law :
A
B
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 198 7: Section C
15. Confession-Recording of-By a Police officer-Typewritten confession
words "records in writing"-Meaning of-Held: wider meaning had to be
given to include typewriting-Confessional statement need not be recorded
by Superintendent of Police in his own handwriting-He could take help
of another person or instrument like typewriter-But he must not leave
work of recording confession to his subordinates-Confession must be D
recorded in his presence and hearing and under his direct control.
Section 5-Ingredients of-Held: Prosecution must prove accused
was in conscious "possession", "unauthoriiedly", in "notified area" of
any of the specified arms and ammunition-No further nexus with any
terrorist or disruptive activity was required to be proved as statutory E
presumption would arise that said arm or explosive substance was meant
to be used for terrorist or disruptive act.
Section 5-Accused found in possession of explosive substances
(Gellatine sticks) for their use in Sri Lanka-Accused did not have intention
to commit terrorist or disruptive activity within India-Held: Accused F
rebutted presumption arising out of his unauthorised possession of Explosive
substance in a notified area-Acq,dttal upheld
Section 5-Explosive substances-Meaning of-Held: could not be
given same meaning as under explosive Substances Act-It must be complete G
article or device capable of exploding-Empty cells or part for making
bomb not covered-However, gelatine sticks were explosive substances-
Provisions must be construed strictly.
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Rules, 1987: Rule
l 5(3)(b). Corifession-Certificate and memorandum made at the end of- H
243
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.
A Held: need not be written down by Superintendent of Police himself-
Typewritten certificate and memorandum signed by him were sufficient.
Explosive substances Act, 1908-'-Section 5.
Ingredients of-Accused found in possession of explosive substances
B as defined by Act- Such articles were parts of bombs and grenades-
Accused did not possess them for any lawful object-Held: All ingredients
of offence under S.5 satisfied-Accused guilty of commission of that offence.
Section 7-Requirement of-Held: Section did not require sanction but
only consent for prosecuting a person-Object of using word "consent"
C instead of "sanction" was to have purely subjective appreciation of matter
before giving consent-Investigating Officer need not submit statement of
witnesses before Collector for obtaining his consent.
Penal Code, 1860; Section 120-B read with Section 3(3), TADA.
D
Conspiracy-Charge of-Certain articles like incomplete grenades
or bombs or their parts and vehicles used in transporting same were
recovered from accused-No evidence led by prosecution to prove that
accused intended to commit terrorist act within India or to endanger
life or cause injury to property in India-Evidence disclosed accused
E involved in manufacturing bombs and grenades for their use by LITE in
Sri Lanka Held: the said recovery, even if believed, not sufficient to prove
charge of conspiracy-Ingredients ofS.3(3) TADA were not satisfied-S.4
of the Explosive Substances Act not applicable.
Section 309-Attempt to comm ii suicide-Proof of-Accused admitted
F that he tried to bite a cyanide capsule when police tried to take him into
custody-Offence also proved-ffeld: acquittal set aside.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:
G
Offence-Under S.4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908-Accused
charged with-Held: accused could be convicted and punished for a lesser
offence under S.5 of that Act if ingredients constituting that offence were
established.
H
Interpretation of Statutes :
STATEOFT.N. v. SIVARASAN
245
Interpretation-Rules of-Strict construction-Held: Statute A
containing stringent provisions and providing heavier punishments must
be construed strictly.
Words and Phrases:
"Recorded in ·writing", "type1vriting"-Meaning of-In the context B
of-S 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention} Act, 1987.
"Explosive substances"--Meaning of-Jn the context of S.5 of the
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.
"Under his own hand"-Meaning of-In the context of R.15{3){b) C
of tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.