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

1986 Supreme(P&H) 12

M.M.PUNCHHI
Ramesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent


Judgment

1. The petitioner is accused of an offence under S.25 of the Arms Act, for allegedly he was found in possession of a country-made pistol. S. 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, has been employed, as concededly there is a notification by the Haryana State Government making all the provisions of the Arms Act applicable to the territories of Haryana under the said provision. It would be useful to reproduce S. 6 herein :-

"ENHANCED PENALTIES. 6(1) If any person contravenes in any area notified in this behalf by a State Government, any such provision of, or any such rule made under the Arms Act, 1959 , the Explosives Act, 1884, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, or the Inflammable Substances Act, 1952, as may be notified in this behalf by the Central Government or by a State Government, he shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any of the aforesaid Acts or the rules made thereunder, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years or, if his intention is to aid any terrorist or disruptionist, with death or imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to term of life, and shal







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