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

N.P.SINGH, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
Sanjay Dutt – Appellant
Versus
State through CBI, Bombay – Respondent


ORDER

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. - 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-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. Mensrea is not an ingredient of the offence. The non obstante clause

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