Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(emphasis supplied) The relevant part of Schedule I to the Arms Rules, 1962 incorporated by reference in section 5 of the TADA Act is as under :

SCHEDULE-I Category 1 Arms Ammunition 3
1. I(a) Prohibited arms as defined in section 2(1) (i) and such other arms as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify to be prohibited arms.

Prohibited ammunition as defined in section 2(l)(h) and such other articles as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify to be prohibited tion.

In the Arms Act, 1959, Section 24A inserted by Act No. 25 of 1983 w.e.f. 22.6.1983 contains provision relating to the 'Prohibition as to possession of notified arms in disturbed areas, etc' : and Section 25 prescribes the 'punishment for certain offences' which includes punishment to a person who acquires, has in his possession or carries any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of Section 7, in sub sections (1) and (LA) inserted by Act No. 25 of 1983 w.e.f. 22.6.1983 and Act No. 42 of 1988 w.e.f. 27.5.1988 respectively. Section 7 prohibits acquisition or possession etc. of prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition unless spe-

cially authorized by the Central Government in this behalf. Clauses (h) and

(i) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Arms Act define 'prohibited ammunition' and prohibited arms' respectively. Section 11 of the Arms Act empowers the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette to prohibit import or export of arms etc. while Section 12 contains a similar power to restrict or prohibit transport of arms. There is no dispute that the prohibition against unauthorised possession of the categories of arms and ammunition etc. specified in Section 5 of the TADA Act could as well be covered by the Arms Act and the rules framed thereunder, if necessary by a further amendment thereof which would be governed by the general law relating to investigation and trial of such offence without attracting the more stringent and drastic provisions of the TADA Act. However, the parliament has chosen to adopt the course of enacting Section 5 in the TADA Act which has the result of governing the investigation, trial and punishment of the offence by the more stringent provisions in this behalf in the TADA Act. In short, the offence prescribed by and made punishable under Section 5 of the TADA Act is a graver offence governed by more stringent provisions for its investigation and trial while providing a more severe maximum, with a minimum punishment of five years' imprisonment for it. It is this difference which is the reason for the controversy raised about the true meaning and scope of the offence prescribed by Section 5 of the TADA Act and the rights of the accused in this context.

It is clear that the statutory presumption so read into Section 5 is in consonance with the scheme of the statute and section 5 read in the context makes the statutory presumption implicit in it. The clear words in Section 21 that the 'Designated Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved' is an unambiguous expression that the presumption thereunder is a rebuttable presumption. The language in Section 21 of the TADA Act has to be contrasted with the Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 which shows that the presumption under section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act is irrebuttable whereas the presumption under Section 21 of the TADA Act is rebuttable. It may here be noticed that Section 5 is attracted only in case of unauthorised possession in a notified area, of arms and ammunition specified in columns 2 and 3 of Category I or Category III(a) of Schedule I to the Arms Rules, 1962 which are prohibited arms, semi-automatic fire ares, smooth bore guns, bolt action or semi-automatic rifles of certain categories, revolvers and pistols, and their ammunition, or bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances, which are all inherently more dangerous weapons. None of these weapon is meant for, or kept, for ordinary use. The statutory presumption is also, therefore, reasonable.