TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies key provisions of TADA Act, emphasizes conscious possession & notice requirements. Accused can rebut possession presumption.</h1> <h3>SANJAY DUTT Versus STATE THRU. C.B.I. BOMBAY</h3> SANJAY DUTT Versus STATE THRU. C.B.I. BOMBAY - 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 263, 1994 (5) SCC 410, 1994 (5) JT 540, 1994 (3) SCALE 1004 Issues Involved:1. Proper construction of Section 5 of the TADA Act.2. Proper construction of clause (bb) of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the TADA Act.3. Proper construction and ambit of sub-section (8) of Section 20 of the TADA Act.Summary:Issue 1: Proper construction of Section 5 of the TADA ActThe Supreme Court analyzed the ingredients of the offence under Section 5 of the TADA Act, which includes possession of specified arms and ammunition, unauthorisedly, in a notified area. The Court clarified that 'possession' must mean conscious possession. The statutory presumption that the weapon was meant for terrorist or disruptive acts arises from unauthorised possession in a notified area. However, this presumption is rebuttable, allowing the accused to prove that the possession was unrelated to any terrorist activity. If the accused successfully rebuts this presumption, the offence is punishable under the general law, not under Section 5 of the TADA Act.Issue 2: Proper construction of clause (bb) of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the TADA ActThe Court clarified that the requirement of notice to the accused before granting an extension for completing the investigation under Section 20(4)(bb) is satisfied by the production of the accused before the court, not necessarily a written notice. The 'indefeasible right' of the accused to be released on bail for default in completing the investigation within the prescribed period is enforceable only until the filing of the challan. Once the challan is filed, this right ceases, and the bail application must be considered under the provisions applicable after the filing of the challan.Issue 3: Proper construction and ambit of sub-section (8) of Section 20 of the TADA ActThe Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Kartar Singh, which clarified the meaning and scope of sub-section (8) of Section 20 of the TADA Act. The conditions imposed under Section 20(8)(b) are consistent with those under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This question did not require further elucidation.Conclusion:The Supreme Court provided detailed interpretations of Sections 5, 20(4)(bb), and 20(8) of the TADA Act, emphasizing the importance of statutory presumptions, the rights of the accused, and the procedural requirements for extending investigation periods and granting bail. The matter was referred back to the Division Bench for a decision on the merits of the bail application.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
