Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1995 DIGILAW 433 (SC)

Jerripothula Appa Rao v. Govt. of A. P.

1995-03-21

FAIZAN UDDIN, G.N.RAY

body1995
ORDER : G.N. Ray, J. - This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, hereinafter referred to as TADA. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 5 of the TADA and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years for consciously possessing unauthorised arms, viz., one Mauser pistol and two country-made pistols. Besides, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment, the appellant was also fined for a sum of Rs 500, in default, simple imprisonment for two months. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended before us that it has now been decided by a Constitutional Bench of this Court in Sanjay Dutt v. State, (1994) 5 SCC 410 , that there is a statutory presumption under Section 5, that if a person is found in conscious possession of an unauthorised weapon in an area notified under TADA, it should be permitted (sic presumed) that such weapon was intended to be used for terrorist activities but such statutory presumption can be rebutted by leading evidence. The learned counsel has contended that no such opportunity to rebut the statutory presumption was given to the appellant because at the time when the trial had taken place the Constitution Bench decision was not made. In the aforesaid circumstances, the case should be reconsidered by giving the appellant opportunity to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 5 TADA. We are not inclined to accept such contention because Section 5 clearly indicates that for such possession of arms, one is liable to be punished under Section 5 of TADA. There was no impediment for the appellant to lead evidence by way of rebuttal if he had intended to do so. 2. It may be stated here that apart from the alleged confession by the appellant before the police officer about the possession of the weapon there is positive evidence that the weapon was recovered from his possession. 3. In such circumstances, no interference is called for and the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.