1999 (3) TMI 630 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the unauthorized possession of multiple passports, possession of a firearm in a notified area, and the application of relevant sections of the Passport Act and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADAA).

Unauthorized Possession of Passports:
The appellant was found in possession of passports issued by both Indian and Pakistani authorities. The Designated Court convicted him under Section 12 of the Passport Act for unauthorized possession of a Pakistani passport while holding another Indian passport under a different name. The court found that the appellant contravened Section 3 of the Passports Act by obtaining a passport under false information. However, the Supreme Court held that since the appellant was not attempting to depart from India, the charge under Section 12 of the Passports Act was unsustainable.

Possession of Firearm in a Notified Area:
The appellant was also charged under Section 5 of the TADAA for possessing a revolver with live cartridges in a notified area. The prosecution argued that the possession of such arms within the notified area attracts the offence under Section 5 of the TADAA. The Supreme Court noted that possession of such arms would be punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, but the more serious offence under Section 5 of the TADAA applies when the possession is within a notified area. The court referred to the statutory presumption under Section 21 of the TADAA, which presumes possession for terrorist or disruptive acts. As the appellant did not rebut this presumption, the court confirmed his conviction under Section 5 of the TADAA.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the conviction under Section 12 of the Passports Act due to lack of evidence of attempting to depart from India. However, the court confirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 5 of the TADAA for possessing a firearm in a notified area, as the statutory presumption of possession for terrorist or disruptive acts was not rebutted by the appellant.