Court Interpretation of TADA Act Sections | Presumption Rebuttal, Investigation Extension, Bail Rights

SANJAY DUTT Versus STATE THROUGH CBI. BOMBAY

SANJAY DUTT Versus STATE THROUGH CBI. BOMBAY - 1994 (2) Suppl. SCR 729, 1994 (5) SCC 402, 1994 (5 Issues Involved:
1. Construction of Section 5 of the TADA Act.
2. Construction of clause (bb) of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the TADA Act.
3. Construction and ambit of sub-section (8) of Section 20 of the TADA Act.

Summary:

1. Construction of Section 5 of the TADA Act:
The Court discussed the proper construction of Section 5 of the TADA Act, which deals with the possession of unauthorized arms in a notified area. The ingredients of the offence include: (i) possession of specified arms and ammunition, (ii) unauthorized possession, and (iii) possession in a notified area. The Court held that the term "possession" must mean conscious possession. The prosecution must prove these three ingredients, and a statutory presumption arises that the weapon was meant for terrorist or disruptive acts. However, the accused can rebut this presumption by proving that the possession was unrelated to any terrorist or disruptive activity. If the accused successfully rebuts the presumption, the offence is punishable under the general law (Arms Act) and not under Section 5 of the TADA Act.

2. Construction of Clause (bb) of Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the TADA Act:
The Court clarified the interpretation of clause (bb) of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the TADA Act, which deals with the extension of the investigation period. The requirement of "notice" to the accused before granting an extension is satisfied by merely producing the accused before the court and informing him that the extension is being considered. The Court also clarified that the "indefeasible right" of the accused to be released on bail due to the default of the prosecution in completing the investigation within the prescribed period is enforceable only until the filing of the challan. Once the challan is filed, the right to bail must be considered under the provisions applicable at that stage.

3. Construction and Ambit of Sub-section (8) of Section 20 of the TADA Act:
The Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Kartar Singh, which had already elucidated the meaning and scope of sub-section (8) of Section 20 of the TADA Act. The Court found no need for further elucidation on this point, as the Constitution Bench had sufficiently addressed it.

Conclusion:
1. Section 5 of the TADA Act creates a statutory offence with strict liability, but the accused can rebut the presumption that the possession was for terrorist or disruptive activities.
2. Clause (bb) of sub-section (4) of Section 20 requires only the production of the accused before the court for notice. The right to bail due to default in completing the investigation is enforceable only until the filing of the challan.
3. The meaning and scope of sub-section (8) of Section 20 have been clarified by the Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh, requiring no further elucidation.