G.NATARAJAN, C.B.CADHVA, N.P.SINGH, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, A.K.SAHU
Sanjay Dutt – Appellant
Versus
State Through C. B. I. , Bombay – Respondent
( 1 ) THE purpose of this order is merely to indicate the reasons for referring the matter to the Constitution bench.
( 2 ) SECTION 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) provides:
"5. Possession of certain unauthorised arms, etc. , in specified areas. Where any person is in possession of any arms and ammunition specified in Columns 2 and 3 of Category I or Category III (a) of Schedule I to the Arms Rules, 1962, or bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances unauthorisedly in a notified area, he shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. "
( 3 ) ACCORDING to this section, unauthorised possession of any of the specified arms and ammunition [specified in Columns 2 and 3 of Category I or Category iii (a) of Schedule I of the Arms Rules, 1962] or bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances in a notified area is sufficient by itself to attract the provision. Mens rea is not an ingredient of the offence. The non obstante clause "notwithstanding a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.