SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 470

2003(3) Supreme 376
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Additional Designated Court-II, Delhi)
S. Rajendra Babu & G.P. Mathur, JJ.
Aslam Parvez etc. -Appellants
versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 307 of 1998
With
Criminal Appeal No. 941 of 1998
Decided on 16-4-2003
Result : Appeal allowed.
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : R.K. Maheshwari, R.K. Sharma, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ashok Bhan, R.K. Rathore, S. Pilavia and D.S. Mahra, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
When fire arm was got recovered by accused pursuant to disclosure from an open place though after digging out some earth, accused could not be said to be in possession of fire arm.

Headnote:Arms Act-Section 25-Explosive Substances Act-Section 5-Recovery of country made revolver, country made unassembled revolvers, one pen pistol, some cartridges, one crude hand grenade, four shells and ten live sutli bombs from three accused appellants after they were apprehended by police raiding party from a factory premises-Conviction by Designated Court-Appeal-Four public witnesses of recovery and seizure turned hostile and none of them supported prosecution case-Evidence of police raiding party officials found stereo type version and appeared highly artificial and improbable-Their evidence did not inspire confidence and it was highly unsafe to place reliance upon same to convict accused. (Paras 9 & 10)

       (ii) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Section 5-Conviction under for possession of a revolver by accused-appellant-Accused had got recovered revolver pursuant to disclosure-Recovery was effected from an open construction site after accused dug out some earth and retrieved one revolver which contained three live rounds-No effort was made by police party to have any public witness at the time of recovery-Recovery was not made from any closed or concealed place but from open place which was accessible to all-Accused could not be held to be in possession of revolver and cartridges-Conviction deserved to be set aside. (Paras 11 to 13)

       

JUDGMENT

G.P. Mathur, J.-Criminal Appeal No. 941 of 1998 has been preferred by Mohd. Ishtiaq and Criminal Appeal No. 307 of 1998 has been preferred by Aslam Parwez against the judgment and order dated 2.2.1998 of Addl. Designated Court (II) Delhi by which the former was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of Explosives Substances Act and was sentenced to two years RI and a fine of Rs.1,000/- under the first count and four years RI and a fine of Rs. 1500/- under the second count and the latter was convicted under Section 5 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred as the TADA") and was sentenced to five years RI and a fine of Rs.1500/-. The sentences imposed upon Mohd. Ishtiaq were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 8.9.1987 Surinder Kumar, who was posted as Sub-Inspector in PS Subzi Mandi was patrolling in the area along with Shashi Pal, Head Constable, and some others. At about 9.30 a.m. the S.H.O. of P.S. Subzi Mandi informed him that he had received information that Mohd. Ishtiaq resident of Kabir Basti was manufacturing arms in his workshop and was supplying the same to others and that lot of arms were kept in his workshop. After receiving the information he requested 3 or 4 passers-by namely Om Prakash Saxena, Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Bilu Ram and others and went near house No.347 Kabir Basti. At about 10.00 a.m. Mohd. Ishtiaq (A-1), Saleem (A-2) and Jameel (A-3) came there. A-1 opened the lock of the factory and all of them went inside and closed the door but the same was not bolted from inside. At about 11.00 a.m. Surinder Kumar pushed the door open and entered the room along with members of the raiding party. They saw that A-1 was having a canvass bag in his hands from which A-2 was taking out a country made pistol and was handing over the same to A-3. One country made revolver was lying on the adjoining table. All the three accused were caught by the raiding party. The canvass bag was found containing two country made unassembled revolvers, one pen pistol, some cartridges, one crude hand grenade, four shells of HE 36 grenade and ten live sutli bombs. A book captioned as Encyclopedia of Ammunition which described the process of manufacturing of weapons with illustrations and photographs was found lying on the table. All the recovered articles were sealed in 11 packets and the same were given to Rakesh Kumar. The police party also found a tin containing 18 parts for manufacturing arms which were sealed in a packet and also a bag containing sulphur, potassium sulphate, yellow colour powder which was also sealed. There were some more tins which contained various objects used for manufacture of arms, drill machine, one blade/saw and 8 tools which were also sealed. Surinder Kumar S.I. then wrote a rukka which was sent to the police station through Kailash Chandra constable for registration of the case. A-1, A-2 and A-3 led the raiding party to Bara Hindu Rao on 9.9.87 where Vakeel, Aslam and Afzal were found standing and they were arrested. A-2 while in police custody made a disclosure statement on 12.9.87 that he had test exploded two bombs in the hills of Hindu Rao Hospital and A-2 and A-3 led the police party to the said place, but nothing was found. Thereafter they led the police party to a place near the tomb where some explosive material in open condition was found lying which was sealed. A-4 Aslam Parwez could not be arrested and therefore proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were taken against him. The case of the prosecution further is that after about 8 months on 2.5.1988 Aslam Parwez (A-4) was produced in the Court and at that time he had kept his face covered with a cloth. The Investigating officer moved an application for holding an identification parade but the same was declined by the accused. Thereafter an application was moved for police remand which was granted. The case of the prosecution















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top