LexTAHIR versus STATE (DELHI)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ TAHIR A v. STATE (DELHI) MARCH 21, 1996 [DR. AS. ANAND AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] B Terr01ist and Disrnptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: S.5-Accused having possession of an w10uth01ised fireann within the r notified area and supporting a mob of rioters-T1ial-Conviction recorded by C Designqted Court on the basis of evidence of police officials-Held, well merited-Accused was in conscious possession of an w10uthorised fireann within the notified arecr-Proceedings initiated under the Act would continue even after expiry of the Act and would not come to an end without final conclusion and detennination. D Criminal Law : Evidence of police officials-Accused prosecuted for an offence u/s. 5 of Terrorists and Disrnptive Activities (Prevention) Act-Prosecution ex- amined .the police officials who had apprehended and arrested the ac- E cused-No independellt wit/less of local area examined-Designated Court recorded conviction on basis of evidence of police officials-Held, conviction can be recorded 011 evidence of police officials in absence of independent witness to lend corroboration, if their evidence found to be trnst-worthy and reliable. F The appellant was prosecuted for an offence under s.5 of the Ter- rorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The prosecution case was that on 14.11.1990 the appellant was supporting a mob of rioters in Chandni Chowk, Delhi and was found waving a country made pistol in the air. He was apprehended by the local police and was formally arrested u/s. 27 of the Arms Act. Since the place of occurrence from where the appellant G was arrested along with the unauthorised fire-arm fell within the area notified nuder TADA, a·~ase under s.5 thereof was registered against him. Thr investigation culminated in the trial of the appellant before the Desig- nated Court which convicted him under s.5 of TADA and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. S,000. H 757 758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R. A In the appeal filed by the appellant before this Court, it was cou- teuded that the prosecution witnesses on whose evidence the conviction was i recorded were all police officials and in the absence of any independent witness to corroborate them it was not safe to rely upon their testimony to sustain the conviction of the appellant; that, in any event, the appellant B could not be convicted under s.5 of TADA as the Notification dated 20.10.1987 declaring Delhi to be a notified area for the purposes of TADA had lapsed and as such it could not be said that after the expiry of the Act the area continued to be a notified area under the TADA and; that since the prosecution had not brought any evidence on record to show any connection between the appellant's holding the pistol and any terrorist C activities as such, his conviction under s.5 of TADA could not be sustained. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful D scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can from basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to land corroboration to their evidence does not in any way affect the credit worthiness of the prosecution case. (761-E-F] 1.2. In the present case, a critical analysis of the evidence of the E police officials shows that they are trustworthy witnesses and their evidence suffers from no infirmity whatsoever. Nothing bas been brought out in their lengthy cross-examination which may create any doubt about their veracity. Keeping in view the circumstances of the situation, when the appellant was apprehended alongwith the country made pistol, the failure F of the prosecution to examine any independent witnesses of the locality does not detract from the reliability of the prosecution case. (761-G-HJ 2. The notified area from where the appellant was apprehended has not been denotified and therefore it cannot be said that after the expiry of the act, the area bas 'ceased' to be a notified area. Moreover, even after G the expiry of TADA, the proceedings initiated thereunder would not come to an end without the final conclusion and determination and that they are to be continued inspite of the expiry of the Act. (762-C; BJ Mohd. Iqbal Madar Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 722, H relied on. \ TAHIR v. STATE (DELHI) (DR. ANAND, J.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.