SURINDER versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

SURINDER versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

There was no evidence that the cartridges recovered were live; therefore, appellant was only in possession of arms, not both arms and ammunition, as contemplated under Section 5 of TADA. Conviction under Section 5 of TADA Act set aside; conviction under Section 25 of Arms Act maintained.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Surinder; Respondent: State of Haryana
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 May 1994
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Decision by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Arms Act, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act, Possession, Conviction, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Arms Act Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act Possession Conviction Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surinder

Appellant

State of Haryana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Decision by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a person can be prosecuted under Section 5 of the TADA Act for recovery of arms on his showing
  2. 2 Whether the arms and ammunition recovered should be serviceable and live to attract Section 5
  3. 3 On whom the burden lies to prove that the arms and ammunition were such as contemplated by Section 5

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that the cartridges recovered were live; therefore, appellant was only in possession of arms, not both arms and ammunition, as contemplated under Section 5 of TADA. Conviction under Section 5 of TADA Act set aside; conviction under Section 25 of Arms Act maintained.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Conviction under Section 5 of TADA Act set aside
  • Conviction under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act maintained