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

1989 Supreme(SC) 184

KULDIP SINGH, S.NATARAJAN
Jaloba – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


(1) THIS appeal under S. 16 ofthe Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prvention) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been preferred bythe appellant to challenge his conviction under S. 25 ofthe Arms Act read with S. 6 ofthe Act andthe sentence of RI for two years and fine of Rs. 500.00 awarded therefor.

(2) THE prosecution case was that duringthe early hours of 7/04/1986 Le. at about 3.15 or 3.30 a.m. Public Witness 4 Sub-inspector Tika Ram along with Head Constable Public Witness 3 Hans Raj and other policemen were doing Nakabandi nearthe culvert of a canal in village Ghudwali. At that time they sawthe appellant coming alongthe road but when he tried to retrace his steps on seeingthe police party, they gave chase to him and apprehended him.the appellant was having a M.L. Gun (Ex. P-1 and 6 topis (caps) Exs. P-3 to P-8 and a plastic vial (Ex. P-9 containing about 25 grams of gunpowder. He had no licence for carryingthe firearm and could not offer any explanation for his possession ofthe firearm andthe caps and gunpowder. He was, therefore arrested and later charged under Section 25 ofthe Arms Act read with S. 6 ofthe Act.

(3) THE prosecution ex






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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top