Credible police testimony and conscious possession in a notified area sustained liability under TADA despite no independent corroboration.

Credible police testimony can sustain a conviction even without independent corroboration where the evidence is consistent and unimpeached. The expiry of TADA did not nullify the notified area or defeat proceedings already initiated under Section 5, as the notification had not been denotified. Conscious possession of an unlicensed firearm in a notified area was sufficient to attract Section 5, and proof of a direct link to terrorist activity was unnecessary. On these principles, the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction could rest on the testimony of police officials in the absence of independent corroboration; (ii) whether the expiry of TADA affected the continued legal force of the notified area and the maintainability of proceedings under Section 5; and (iii) whether conscious possession of an unlicensed firearm in a notified area, without proof of any terrorist activity, attracted liability under Section 5 of TADA.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction could rest on the testimony of police officials in the absence of independent corroboration.

Analysis: The evidence of the police witnesses was found to be consistent, credible, and unimpeached in cross-examination. The absence of independent witnesses was held not to be fatal, since there is no rule of law that police testimony cannot form the basis of conviction if it inspires confidence, though it must be scrutinised with care as a matter of prudence.

Conclusion: The conviction could validly rest on the reliable testimony of the police officials, and the absence of independent corroboration did not discredit the prosecution case.

Issue (ii): Whether the expiry of TADA affected the continued legal force of the notified area and the maintainability of proceedings under Section 5.

Analysis: The plea that the notification declaring Delhi a notified area had lapsed with the expiry of the Act was rejected. The Court relied on the principle that proceedings initiated under the Act do not abate merely because the Act has expired, and noted that the notified area had not been denotified.

Conclusion: The notified area continued to subsist for the purpose of the case, and the prosecution under Section 5 of TADA remained maintainable.

Issue (iii): Whether conscious possession of an unlicensed firearm in a notified area, without proof of any terrorist activity, attracted liability under Section 5 of TADA.

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that mere conscious possession of an unlicensed firearm answering the description of an arm under the Arms Act in a notified area is sufficient to attract Section 5 of TADA. Proof of direct connection with terrorist activity was held unnecessary where conscious possession in the notified area was established.

Conclusion: The appellant's conscious possession of the firearm in the notified area attracted Section 5 of TADA, and the conviction was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Conscious possession of an unlicensed firearm in a notified area is sufficient to attract Section 5 of TADA, and a conviction may rest on credible police testimony even without independent corroboration.

---