https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182072 Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was construed as requiring proof of conscious unauthorised possession of the specified arms, ammunition or explosives in a notified area, with a rebuttable presumption that such possession was connected to terrorist or disruptive activity; the prosecution need not prove any further nexus, but the accused may rebut the presumption by showing innocent or lawful purpose, in which event the matter falls to the general law and Section 12. For extension of investigation time under Section 20(4)(bb), production of the accused before the court and informing him of the proposed extension was held sufficient notice, and the default-bail right was confined to the period before filing of the challan. Section 20(8) was left to existing constitutional precedent. 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 Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was construed as requiring proof of conscious unauthorised possession of the specified arms, ammunition or explosives in a notified area, with a rebuttable presumption that such possession was connected to terrorist or disruptive activity; the prosecution need not prove any further nexus, but the accused may rebut the presumption by showing innocent or lawful purpose, in which event the matter falls to the general law and Section 12. For extension of investigation time under Section 20(4)(bb), production of the accused before the court and informing him of the proposed extension was held sufficient notice, and the default-bail right was confined to the period before filing of the challan. Section 20(8) was left to existing constitutional precedent. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182072