Important Points
1. In absence of evidence to show that Gun possessed by accused was in working condition and cartridges were alive conviction under Section 5 of TADA cannot be made.
2. Where charge was under Section 25 of Arms Act and under Section 5 of TADA absence of sanction for prosecution under Arms Act is not a bar to try offence under Section 5 of TADA.

Headnote:Arms Act, 1959-Section 25-Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Unauthorised possession of arms and ammunition-Appeal against acquittal -Evidence established accused unlawfully possessed .12 DBBL Gun and four live cartridges-Acquittal on ground sanction under Section 39 of Arms Act not obtained to initiate prosecution-Trial under Section 5 of TADA also no possible-Whether correct? No-View that in absence of sanction for prosecution accused cannot be prosecuted even under Section 5 of TADA is wrong -However, accused entitled to acquittal on another ground-No report from Forensic Scientific Laboratory nor any evidence to prove that Gun was in working condition and cartridges were live-Acquittal merits no interference. (Paras 3 & 4)

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case State of Punjab vs. Jagga Singh:

The appeal was directed against the acquittal order passed by the Designated Court, Sangrur, in a Sessions Case involving offences under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). (!)
The respondent was found in unlawful possession of a .12 DBBL Gun and four live cartridges in a notified area, but the Designated Court acquitted him solely because no sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act was obtained for the prosecution. (!)
The Supreme Court held that the absence of sanction for prosecution under the Arms Act does not act as a bar to trying the accused under Section 5 of the TADA Act. (!)
Despite the legal error regarding the sanction, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on merits, ruling that the respondent deserved acquittal due to insufficient evidence. (!)
There was no report from the Forensic Scientific Laboratory, nor was there any evidence to prove that the gun was in a working condition or that the cartridges were live. (!)
The entry in the Malkhana register relied upon by the prosecution did not specify that the gun was sent to the Central Forensic Laboratory nor did it contain a description of the cartridges. (!)
Consequently, in the absence of evidence showing the gun was functional and the cartridges were live, a conviction under Section 5 of the TADA Act could not be made. (!)

Judgment

Nanavati, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Designated Court, Sangrur in Sessions Case No. 55 of 1993.

2. The respondent was tried for the offences punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the TADA Act”). The charge against him was that he was found in unlawful possession of one .12 DBBL Gun and four live cartridges on 15.5.1992 in village Khillan, which has been declared as a notified area under the TADA Act. The Designated Court held that the evidence of P.W. 1 H.C. Baldev Singh and P.W. 3 Constable Basant Singh was sufficient to establish that the respondent was in unlawful possession of a Gun and four live cartridges. The Designated Court, however, did not scrutinise the evidence further and thought it fit to acquit the respondent only on the ground that as no sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act was obtained to initiate prosecution against the accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the TADA Act, has, “the effect of enhancing penalty as prescribed under the Arms Act”, the accused cannot be tried for either of the offences.

3. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has filed this appeal. We are of the opinion that Mr. Sodhi is right in contending that the view taken by the Designated Court that in absence of sanction for prosecuting an accused under the Arms Act, he cannot be prosecuted even under Section 5 of the TADA Act, is wrong. But it is not necessary to allow this appeal and remand the case to the Designated Court as the respondent deserves to the acquitted even otherwise on merits. Though the evidence of P.W. 1 H.C. Baldev Singh and P.W. 3 Basant Singh establishes that the respondent was found in possession of one .12 bore DBBL Gun and four live cartridges, there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the said Gun and the cartridges were sent for examination by the Central Forensic Scientific Laboratory. There is no report from the Forensic Scientific Laboratory nor any other evidence to prove that the said Gun was in a working condition or that the said cartridges were live cartridges. An entry made in the Malkhana register was relied upon by the prosecution. It does not mention that Gun bearing No. 14119-88 was sent to the Central Forensic Laboratory nor does it contain any description of the cartridges.

4. Therefore, in absence of any evidence to show that the respondent was found in possession of one .12 bore DBBL Gun in a working condition and four live cartridges, the respondent cannot be convicted under Section 5 of the TADA Act. This appeal is dismissed.

(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.

**********

Click Here to Read the rest of this document