https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173978 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. en-us Wed, 29 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Sep 2015 17:30:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173978 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173978