9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Jurisdiction of Designated Court, Sufficiency of Evidence, Sentencing
Jurisdiction of Designated Court: The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Designated Court to try him under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (TADA) as he was charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act, not under Section 3 of TADA. The court clarified that under Section 6 and 9 of TADA, if a person contravenes any provision under the Arms Act in a notified area, the Designated Court has jurisdiction. The State had notified the area under TADA, making the offence triable by the Designated Court. The argument against the court's jurisdiction was deemed untenable, and the appellant's contention was dismissed. Sufficiency of Evidence: The prosecution case relied on police officers' testimony who apprehended the appellant with incriminating articles. The appellant denied the allegations, claiming a false case was orchestrated by a local MLA. The court noted the circumstances of the arrest in the early morning on a secluded road made independent witnesses unlikely. The defense's claim of police collusion with the MLA was considered implausible. The court found the prosecution's case proved beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. Sentencing: The appellant's counsel requested leniency in sentencing due to the appellant's age and family responsibilities. The court, considering these factors, reduced the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment from two years to one year while confirming the fine of &8377; 500. The court held that justice would be served by reducing the sentence, taking into account the appellant's personal circumstances. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the sentence accordingly.
|
