Exclusive Designated Court jurisdiction applies to Arms Act offences in notified areas; conviction upheld on credible police evidence.

An Arms Act offence committed in a notified area was held triable exclusively by the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, because Sections 6 and 9 conferred enhanced punishment and special trial jurisdiction even without a separate charge under Section 3. The conviction was also upheld on the basis of credible police witness evidence, as independent witnesses were unlikely to be present on a lonely road at an early hour and the plea of false implication failed. Taking the appellant's age and family circumstances into account, the substantive sentence was reduced, while the finding of guilt and fine remained intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Designated Court had jurisdiction to try the appellant for contravention of Section 25 of the Arms Act in view of Sections 6 and 9 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 and the notification of the area under the Act; (ii) whether the conviction based on the evidence of the police witnesses called for interference and whether the substantive sentence deserved reduction.

Issue (i): whether the Designated Court had jurisdiction to try the appellant for contravention of Section 25 of the Arms Act in view of Sections 6 and 9 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 and the notification of the area under the Act.

Analysis: Section 6 provided for enhanced punishment where, in a notified area, a person contravened any provision of the Arms Act, and Section 9 required such offences to be tried only by the Designated Court. Since the area had been notified by the State Government, the offence under the Arms Act became triable exclusively by the Designated Court even though no charge under Section 3 of the Act was framed.

Conclusion: The Designated Court had jurisdiction to try the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the conviction based on the evidence of the police witnesses called for interference and whether the substantive sentence deserved reduction.

Analysis: The appellant was apprehended in the early hours on a lonely road, where independent witnesses were unlikely to be present. The evidence of the police officers who effected the recovery was accepted, and the plea of false implication was rejected. On sentence, the appellant's age and family circumstances were taken into account.

Conclusion: The conviction was maintained, but the substantive sentence was reduced from two years' rigorous imprisonment to one year.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction of the substantive term of imprisonment, while the finding of guilt and the fine remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an offence under the Arms Act is committed in a notified area, Sections 6 and 9 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Designated Court to try it, and a conviction may be sustained on credible police evidence even in the absence of independent witnesses when the circumstances do not reasonably permit their presence.

---