SANTOSH KALYAN PANGERKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 (hereinafter TADA) is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th March 1993, passed by the Designated Court for Greater Bombay.

(2.) THE appellant was tried for offences under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the TADA and Section 3 (1) read with section 25 [l -B (a)] of the Arms Act, 1959 by the Designated Court. The prosecution case against him was that on 16.1.1991, at about 3 p.m. PI Dhoble (PW4) on receipt of some information that the appellant, belonging to Amar Naik gang, had taken shelter in Pansare Chawl, situated near the junction of Sane Guruji Marg and N. M. Joshi Marg, Bombay, proceeded to the spot alongwith PSI Vemekar (PW1), PSI Pote (PW 2) PSI Dhanvat, .PSI Maralkar and some constables for raiding the place. The raid operations of the police party, however, did not result in any criminal being apprehended from Pansare Chawl, and when the police party came out they found a white fiat car bearing Registration No. MFA - 7305, with the appellant sitting on the driver seat, parked there. On seeing the police party, the appellant who was sitting on the driver seat, opened the door and made an attempt to run away. He was, however, chased and overpowered. The panchas were called and in their presence, the appellant was searched. He was found to be in possession of a country made pistol loaded with one cartridge. One more cartridge of the similar type, was found in the right hand pocket of the appellant while one magazine loaded with seven cartridges was found in the pocket of the pant of the appellant. The fire arm and ammunition, alongwith the keys of the motor car MFA -7305; were seized under a panchnama and sealed by the police party. The appellant was arrested and taken to the police station where PSI Vernekar (PWl) lodged the FIR Ex.6, for the offences, as noticed above, against the appellant. The fire arm and ammunition seized from the appellant were sent to the Forensic Laboratory and on receipt of a report from the laboratory, sanction to prosecute the appellant was obtained. The appellant did not possess any licence for the arms and ammunition. Pansare Chawl had been declared as a notified area under section 2 (t) of TADA by the State of Maharashtra and for the purposes of section 5 of TADA, unauthorised possession of fire arm, by itself constitutes punishable offence. The appellant was, therefore put on trial for the offences noticed above.

(3.) THAT the appellant has already undergo one the sentence imposed upon him by the Designated Court is not disputed by learned counsel for the parties, but whereas Mr. Bhasme, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra submitted that since the appellant had already undergone the sentence, the appeal did not merit any further consideration, Sh. R.K. Jain, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, on the other hand submitted that the evidence on the record did not justify the conviction of the appellant at all and, therefore, the appellant deserved to be acquitted. Learned counsel for the parties took us through the evidence of the case.