Holding

A conviction under section 5 of TADA is valid where police testimony is trustworthy, the area remains notified despite the Act's expiry, and conscious possession of an unlicensed firearm in that area satisfies the statutory requirement.

Summary

The appellant, Tahir, was arrested during a communal riot in Delhi while brandishing a country‑made pistol. The pistol was seized, and because the arrest occurred in an area notified under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA), he was charged under section 5 of TADA and convicted by the Designated Court, receiving five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, he contended that the conviction relied solely on police testimony without any independent corroboration, that the TADA notification had lapsed with the expiry of the Act, and that mere possession of the firearm did not establish a terrorist connection. The Supreme Court held that reliable police testimony can alone support a conviction, that the notified area remained in force despite the Act's expiry and that proceedings continue, and that conscious possession of an unlicensed firearm in a notified area satisfies the elements of section 5 TADA. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a conviction under section 5 of TADA can be sustained solely on the testimony of police officials in the absence of independent corroboration.
Whether the expiry of TADA and the lapse of the notification rendering Delhi a notified area defeats a conviction for an offence committed before the expiry.
Whether mere conscious possession of an unlicensed firearm in a notified area, without proof of a terrorist act, suffices for conviction under section 5 of TADA.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959s. 27
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987s. 19, s. 5

Subjects

TADApolice testimonyindependent witnessnotified areaexpiry of statuteunlicensed firearmconvictioncriminal procedure

Judgment

\
TAHIR A
v.
STATE (DELHI)

MARCH 21, 1996

[DR. AS. ANAND AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] B

Terr01ist and Disrnptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987:

S.5-Accused having possession of an w10uth01ised fireann within the
r notified area and supporting a mob of rioters-T1ial-Conviction recorded by C
Designqted Court on the basis of evidence of police officials-Held, well
merited-Accused was in conscious possession of an w10uthorised fireann
within the notified arecr-Proceedings initiated under the Act would continue
even after expiry of the Act and would not come to an end without final
conclusion and detennination.
D
Criminal Law :

Evidence of police officials-Accused prosecuted for an offence u/s. 5
of Terrorists and Disrnptive Activities (Prevention) Act-Prosecution ex-
amined .the police officials who had apprehended and arrested the ac- E
cused-No independellt wit/less of local area examined-Designated Court
recorded conviction on basis of evidence of police officials-Held, conviction
can be recorded 011 evidence of police officials in absence of independent
witness to lend corroboration, if their evidence found to be trnst-worthy and
reliable.
F
The appellant was prosecuted for an offence under s.5 of the Ter-
rorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The prosecution
case was that on 14.11.1990 the appellant was supporting a mob of rioters
in Chandni Chowk, Delhi and was found waving a country made pistol in the
air. He was apprehended by the local police and was formally arrested u/s.
27 of the Arms Act. Since the place of occurrence from where the appellant G
was arrested along with the unauthorised fire-arm fell within the area
notified nuder TADA, a·~ase under s.5 thereof was registered against him.
Thr investigation culminated in the trial of the appellant before the Desig-
nated Court which convicted him under s.5 of TADA and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. S,000. H
757
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A In the appeal filed by the appellant before this Court, it was cou-
teuded that the prosecution witnesses on whose evidence the conviction was i
recorded were all police officials and in the absence of any independent
witness to corroborate them it was not safe to rely upon their testimony to
sustain the conviction of the appellant; that, in any event, the appellant
B could not be convicted under s.5 of TADA as the Notification dated
20.10.1987 declaring Delhi to be a notified area for the purposes of TADA
had lapsed and as such it could not be said that after the expiry of the Act
the area continued to be a notified area under the TADA and; that since
the prosecution had not brought any evidence on record to show any
connection between the appellant's holding the pistol and any terrorist
C activities as such, his conviction under s.5 of TADA could not be sustained.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful
D scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable,
it can from basis of conviction and the absence of some independent
witness of the locality to land corroboration to their evidence does not in
any way affect the credit worthiness of the prosecution case. (761-E-F]

1.2. In the present case, a critical analysis of the evidence of the
E police officials shows that they are trustworthy witnesses and their
evidence suffers from no infirmity whatsoever. Nothing bas been brought
out in their lengthy cross-examination which may create any doubt about
their veracity. Keeping in view the circumstances of the situation, when the
appellant was apprehended alongwith the country made pistol, the failure
F of the prosecution to examine any independent witnesses of the locality
does not detract from the reliability of the prosecution case. (761-G-HJ

2. The notified area from where the appellant was apprehended has
not been denotified and therefore it cannot be said that after the expiry of
the act, the area bas 'ceased' to be a notified area. Moreover, even after
G the expiry of TADA, the proceedings initiated thereunder would not come
to an end without the final conclusion and determination and that they are
to be continued inspite of the expiry of the Act. (762-C; BJ

Mohd. Iqbal Madar Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 722,
H relied on.
\
TAHIR v. STATE (DELHI) (DR. ANAND, J.] 759

3. The appellant was having conscious possession of an unlicenced A
firearm in a notified area and was, therefore rightly convicted under section
5 of the TADA. The conviction recorded by the Designated Court in the
established facts and circnmstances of the case is well merited. (762-G]

Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra, (1994] 5 SCC 410, followed.
B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
835 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 1/8.8.95 of the Designated
Court, Ilnd Addi. Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 171 of 1995.
c·
D.D. Thakur and R.N. Keshwani for the Appellants.

Ms. Shashi Kiran and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
DR. ANAND, J, The appellant calls in question his conviction and
sentence for an offence under Section 5 of Terrorists and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 (hereinafter referred to as TADA)
recorded by the Designated Court II, Delhi on !st of August 1995 through
this appeal under Section 19 of TADA.
E
According to the prosecution case on 14.11.1990, a mob collected at
Gurudwara Sis Ganj Sahib in Chandni Chowk, Delhi and moved in a
procession towards the Idgah Park. A meeting was going on.in Idgah Park
where some provocative speeches were made by some of the speakers
leading to communal riots. At abm1t (30 p.m. the riot was at a pitch and F
stones and othermissiles, were_ hurled on the members of the opposite side
from Idgah Road - Nawab Road of Sadar Bazar by the rioters. The
appellant was supporting the mob of .rioters and was found holding a
country made pistol in his hand and waiving it in the air. The police party
made some arrests. The appellant was apprehended by SI Didar S!-IO
PW4, who caught him along with the pistol. The appellant was then handed G
over to SI Sukhbir Singh PW7 who arrested him in the riot case and later
on formally arrested him in a case under Section 27 of the Arms Act for
being in possession of a country made pistol without any authority also. A
ruqa was sent by ASI Diwani Ran PW6 to SI Ishwar Chand PW 1 who
registered the FIR and copy of the FIR was sent to SI Sukhbir Singh PW7. H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A After the arrest of the appellant, the country made pistol was seized from
him possession and sealed into a parcel which was kept with the Moharar
Head Constable (Malkhana) PW3. The parcel containing the country made
pistol was lateron sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory for
examination and the Ballistic Expert opined that the 12 bore country made
pistol was a fire arm as defined in the Arms act 1959 and was found to be
B
in a working order. The report from the Central Forensic Science
Laboratory with the opinion of the Expert was received on 27.12.1990.
Since, the place from where the appellant was arrested alongwith the
unauthorised fire arm fell in the area Notified under TADA, the investigat-
ing agency after obtaining the statutory sanction registered a case against
C the appellant for the offence under Section 5 TADA. On completion of
the investigation, the appellant was sent up for trial before the Designated
Court and on conviction for an offence under Section 5 of TADA, was
sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000 and in
default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for two months.
D
With a view to connect the appellant with the crime, the prosecution
examined seven witnesses. PW 1 is the duty officer who recorded the
formal FIR Ex. PWl/A Sealed parcel containing the country made pistol
was taken from the Moharan Head Constable Malkhana PW3 to the
Central Forensic Science Laboratory by PW2. These there witnesses are of
E a formal nature.

PW 4, Inspector Didar Singh was the SHO of the area at the relevant
time was present at the spot alongwith the police force. From the evidence
of Inspector Didar Singh PW4, it clearly emerges that the appellant was
F apprehended at the spot at about 4.30 p.m. on 14.11.1990 and at that time
he was found holding a country made pistol in his hand and waiving it in
the air. It also transpires from his evidence that because of provocative
'peeches made at ldgah Park communal rioting had ensued and brickbats,
stones and other missiles were being hurled at the opposite party from the
rioting mob present al the Idgah Road. Constable Mahabir Singh PWS,
G fully corroborated the statement of Inspector_ Didar Singh PW4 in all
material particulars. It was he who took the ruqa from PW4 to the police
station for registration of the formal FIR. The evidence of Didar Singh
PW4, is also corroborated by AS! Diwani Ram PW6 and Inspector Sukhbir
Singh PW7. Nothing has been brought out in the evidence of any of these
H witnesses to show as to why they should falsely deposed against the
\
TAHIR v. STATE (DELHI) [DR. ANAND, J.] 761

appellant. They have given a clear and cogent version of the occurrence A
· f- and their evidence inspires confidence. Their testimony has remained
unshaken in cross-examination.

The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
claimed innocence and submitted that he was apprehended from the tea
shop outside his house near Filmistan when some riot was going on near B
and around Idgah and he was later on taken to the police station and
implicated in this case. This appellant, has, however, led no evidence in
defence. The reason for the alleged false implication has, however, not
been spelt out.
r
Mr. D.D. Thakur, the learned semor counsel appearing for the
c
appellant, submitted that PW 4 to PW 7 on whose evidence the conviction
has been recorded were all police officials and in the absence of any
.independent witness to corroborate them, it was not safe to rely upon their
testimony to sustain the conviction of the appellant. We cannot agree. In
our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials, merely D
. because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or
evid.ence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the
evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by
some independent. evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only re-
quires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to E
be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the
evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence
and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction
and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend
corroboration to their. evidence, does not in any way affect the credit
+ worthiness of the prosecution case: F

Our critical analysis of the evidence of the aforesaid four police
officials has created an impression on our minds that they are trustworthy
witnesses and their evidence suffers from no infirmity whatsoever. Nothing
has been brought out in their lengthy cross-examination which may create G
any doubt about their veracity. We find evidence to be reliable. Keeping
in view the circumstances of the situation, when the appellant was ap-
prehended alongwith the country made pistol, the failure of the prosecu-
tion to examine any independent witnesses of the locality does not detract
from the reliability of the prosecution case. Faced with the unimpeachable
evidence of arrest of the appellant at the spot with the country made pistol, H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A Mr. Thakur submitted that the Notification dated 20th October 1987
declaring Delhi to be a Notified Area for the purposes of TADA had
lapsed because of the lapse of the Act itself and it could not be said that
after the expiry of the Act area continued to be a notified area under
TADA and therefore the appellant could not be convicted for an offence
under Section 5, TADA. This submission has no force and merits rejection.
B In Mohd. Iqbal Madar Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra, [1996] 1 SCC 722, a
three Judge Bench of this Court has expressly considered the effect of the
expiry of the Act and opined that even after the expiry of the Act, the
proceedings initiated under that Act would not come to an end without the
final conclusion and determination and that they are to be continued
C inspite of the expiry of the Act. The notified area from where the appellant
was apprehended has not been denotified and therefore it is futile to
contend that after the expiry of the Act, the area has 'ceased' to be a
notified area.

Mr. Thakur lastly submitted that since the prosecution had not
D brought any evidence on the record to show any connection between the
appellant's holding the pistol and any terrorist activity as such, his convic-
tion under Section 5 of TADA cannot be sustained. The argument also
deserves a notice only to be rejected. A Constitution Bench of this Court
in Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 5 SCC 410 has laid down that
mere conscious possession of an unlicenced fire arm, which answers the
E description of an arm under the Arms Act, without any licence, in a
Notified Area attracts punishment under Section 5 of TADA and an
accused shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life
F and shall also be liable to fine. In view of the established facts on the
record, the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sanjay Dutt's case
(supra), fully applies to the case of the appellant since the appellant was ·
having conscious possession of the weapon which answers the description
of an arm under the Arms Act in a notified area. The conviction of the
appellant recorded under Section 5 of TADA by the learned Designated
G Court in the established facts and circumstances of the case is well merited.

There is no merit in this appeal which fails and is hereby dismissed.

R.P. Appeal dismissed.