https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182072 SC held that for an offence under Section 5 TADA the prosecution need only prove conscious, unauthorised possession in a notified area of specified arms/explosives; no further nexus with terrorist/disruptive activity need be proved due to the statutory presumption. The accused may rebut that presumption by adducing evidence that possession was not for terrorist/disruptive purposes; if successful the offence falls under general law (Section 12) and not Section 5. Production of the accused in court satisfies the notice requirement for extending investigation beyond 180 days under Section 20(4)(bb). The statutory bail right on default runs from default until filing of the challan; after filing normal bail law applies. en-us Fri, 09 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Oct 2025 17:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182072 SC held that for an offence under Section 5 TADA the prosecution need only prove conscious, unauthorised possession in a notified area of specified arms/explosives; no further nexus with terrorist/disruptive activity need be proved due to the statutory presumption. The accused may rebut that presumption by adducing evidence that possession was not for terrorist/disruptive purposes; if successful the offence falls under general law (Section 12) and not Section 5. Production of the accused in court satisfies the notice requirement for extending investigation beyond 180 days under Section 20(4)(bb). The statutory bail right on default runs from default until filing of the challan; after filing normal bail law applies. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182072