Foreign passport possession alone is not enough, while unauthorised arms in a notified area trigger a statutory presumption.

Mere possession of a foreign passport does not by itself contravene the Passports Act unless there is departure from India or an attempt to depart, because liability under Section 12 depends on breach of the departure control in Section 3. By contrast, unauthorised possession of a revolver and live cartridges in a notified area attracts the special anti-terror law, since Section 5 creates a rebuttable presumption that such arms were intended for terrorist or disruptive activity. The presence of an Arms Act offence does not displace the aggravated offence under the special statute where the presumption is not rebutted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether possession of a foreign passport, without departure from India or an attempt to depart from India, constituted an offence under Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967 read with Section 3 thereof; (ii) Whether unauthorised possession of a revolver and live cartridges within a notified area attracted conviction under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, and whether that conviction could be displaced by reference to the Arms Act.

Issue (i): Whether possession of a foreign passport, without departure from India or an attempt to depart from India, constituted an offence under Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967 read with Section 3 thereof.

Analysis: Section 3 of the Passports Act, 1967 regulates departure from India and its contravention is the foundation for liability under Section 12(1)(a). The facts showed that the appellant had entered India and was not shown to have departed from, or attempted to depart from, India. Mere possession of a foreign passport, even if obtained under a different name, did not amount to a contravention of Section 3 on the facts proved.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967 was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether unauthorised possession of a revolver and live cartridges within a notified area attracted conviction under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, and whether that conviction could be displaced by reference to the Arms Act.

Analysis: Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act penalises unauthorised possession of specified arms and ammunition in a notified area, where such possession raises a statutory presumption that the weapon was meant for a terrorist or disruptive act. The recovered revolver and cartridges were of the kind covered by Schedule I of the Arms Rules, 1962, and the appellant had no licence or authorisation. The presumption was not rebutted. The existence of an offence under the Arms Act did not displace the aggravated offence under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act were upheld against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of the passport offence, while the conviction for possession of arms in a notified area remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere possession of a foreign passport does not attract liability under the passport law absent departure from India or an attempt to depart from India, while unauthorised possession of specified arms in a notified area gives rise to a rebuttable statutory presumption of terrorist or disruptive use under the special anti-terror law.

---