Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)Article 1 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sanjay Dutt vs State Through C.B.I. Bombay on 9 September, 1994
In Sanjay
Datt's case (supra) it has been clearly laid down that with
a view to hold an accused guilty of an offence under Section
5 of TADA, the prosecution is required to prove
satisfactorily that the accused was in conscious possession,
unauthorized, in a notified area, of any arm and ammunition
of the specified description. The use of the word "and" was
explained by the Constitution Bench to be disjunctive and
that to sustain the conviction for an offence under Section
5 TADA it is not necessary to establish that the accused
possessed both the arm and ammunition. The unauthorised
possession of either, in a notified area, attracts the
provisions of Section 5 TADA. The absence of any expert
opinion about the status of the recovered cartridges,
therefore, cannot militate against the conviction of the
appellant for the offence under Section 5 of TADA for being
found unauthorized in possession of the specified fire arm,
(Art 1), in the notified area.
Section 25 in The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
The Arms Act, 1959
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
1