SUNDER versus STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 277 · Decided: 23-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL, H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
SUNDER 
V. 
STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) 
JULY 23, 2002 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: Ss. 399 and 402-Five persons prosecuted for these 
offences and for offences under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) 
A 
B 
Act as also under Arms Act-Designated Court convicting two appellants C 
herein u!ss. 399 and 402 !PC and 2 5 Arms Act-Other three convicted of all 
the charges-However, in a separate appeal the said three persons acquitted 
by Supreme Court of charges u!ss, 399 and 402-Held, for the reasons stated 
in the appeal, conviction and sentence of the two appellants herein for offences 
u./ss, 399 and 402 deserves to be set aside. 
Suleman and Ors. v. State of Delhi, [1999) 4 SCC 146, relied on 
Sukhbir Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, JT (1997) 8 SC 379, cited. 
Arms Act, 1959: s.25-Appellants along with three others convicted of 
D 
the charge--Conviction and sentence of other three affirmed by Supreme Court E 
in a separate appeal-Contention by State that since recovery against other 
three was held to be proved it was not open to appellants herein to urge to 
the contrary, rejected-Since recovery of knives from the appellants herein 
has not been proved, their conviction uls. 25 cannot be maintained 
Suleman and Ors. v. State of Delhi, [1999) 4 SCC 146, referred to 
F 
Criminal Trial: 
Examination of witnesses-Appellants prosecuted u!s. 25 Arms Act-
Recovery of knives from their possession alleged--Three persons witnessed 
the recovery-Only one of them (PW 2) examined, who turned hostile-Held, G 
despite the fact that PW 2 was declared hostile prosecution did not think it 
appropriate to examine the other two witnesses of recovery memo, or at least 
one of them-There are matters of contradictions in the testimony of PW 2 
and PW 6--0n examination of the testimony of PW 2 and PW 6 it is not 
possible and safe to place any reliance on testimony of PW 2-Resultantly, H 
277 
278 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A seizure of knives from appellants has not been proved. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 450 
of 2002. 
Form the Judgment and Order dated 5/6.5.98 of the Designated Court, 
B Delhi in S.C. No. 29/97, F.l.R. No. 24 of 1991. 
WITH 
Crl. A. No. 602 of 2002. 
C 
R.K. Maheshwari, Mohd. Nasir, Rishi Maheshwari, Jana Kalyan Das 
D 
for the Appellant. 
Ashok Bhan, R.K. Rathore and D.S. Mahra for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
· Criminal Appeal No. 450/ 2002 has been filed by Sunder and Criminal 
Appeal No. 602/2002 by Satbir Singh under Section 19 of the Terrorist and 
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA in short) against the 
judgment and order dated 5th and 6th May, 1998 passed by the Designated 
Court, Delhi. By the said judgment the appellants have been convicted for 
E offences under Sections 399 and 402 l.P.C. as also Section 25 of the Arms 
Act. Besides these two appellants, the three other accused who were convicted 
by the Designated Court by common Judgment were Suleman , Chiman and 
Sadhu Ram. Suleman and Sadhu Ram were also convicted under Section 5 
of the TADA Act. We are, however, not concerned with their cases since the 
F 
appeals filled by the said three were decided by this Court in case reported 
in [1999] 4 SCC 146, Suleman's Ors. v. State of Delhi, and their conviction 
under Section 399 and 402 l.P.C. was set aside. The conviction and sentence 
under TADA Act was, however, maintained and also the Conviction and 
sentence for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. For offence under 
Section 25 of the Arms Act, the Designated Court has imposed on each of 
G the appellants Sentence of one year and fine of Rs. 400 
It is not in question that for reasons stated in Suleman 's case (supra) the 
conviction and Sentence of the appellants as well for offences under Section 
399 and 402 IPC deserves to be set aside. 
H 
That leaves the question in respect of conviction and sentence of the 
SUNDER v. STATE(N.C.T. OF DELHI) 
279 
two appellants before us for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 
A 
Challenging the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellants have made 
two submissions: (I) Designated Court had no jurisdiction to try the case 
against the appellants, and (2) Recovery of knives from the appellants has not 
been proved and therefore the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the offence 
under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 
B 
The basis of the first submission is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.