Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI Bombay

Quick Summary

The case deals with three things: (1) how to read “defence” when a statute uses exceptions, (2) how default bail under TADA Section 20(4)(bb) works if both sides move the court around the same time, and (3) how to read “arms and ammunition” in Section 5 TADA. The Court finally convicted Sanjay Dutt under the Arms Act for unauthorised possession of weapons and ammunition, but not for the other charges under TADA.

Issues

• Is an accused raising an “exception” or simply denying an ingredient of the offence? The answer depends on the statute’s wording.
• For default bail under Section 20(4)(bb) TADA, does it matter who files first—accused or prosecution—if the court considers both?
• Should “arms and ammunition” in Section 5 TADA be read conjunctively in deciding liability?

Rules

• Arms Act, 1959: Sections 3 & 7 read with Sections 25(1A) and 25(1B)(a) penalise unauthorised possession and related acts.
• TADA Section 20(4)(bb): Default bail turns on statutory time limits and filings; the court weighs both the accused’s plea and the prosecutor’s report when deciding bail.
• Burden & Exceptions: Whether a plea is an “exception” or a denial of an ingredient is a question of statutory construction.

Arguments

Judgment

• Conviction: Sections 3 & 7 read with Sections 25(1A), 25(1B)(a), Arms Act, 1959.
• Sentence: Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 6 years + fine ₹25,000; default sentence 6 months RI.
• Acquittal: Not guilty of other charges for which he was tried.
• Default bail: Court clarified that the accused’s application and prosecutor’s report under clause (bb) must both be considered; “who filed first” is not decisive by itself.

Ratio

Reading of “defence” depends on the statute. For TADA default bail, consideration of both filings is key, not filing order. Possession-based liability was ultimately fixed under the Arms Act; broader TADA liability was not made out.

Why It Matters

• Clarifies the working of default bail under special laws like TADA.
• Shows how possession can attract the Arms Act even if TADA is not made out.
• Emphasises careful statutory construction for exceptions and ingredients.

Key Takeaways

• Default bail: Court weighs both sides’ filings; timelines rule.
• Arms Act: Unauthorised possession → conviction even if TADA fails.
• Exceptions vs ingredients: Look to the statute’s language.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “DUTT = Default-bail, Unauthorised arms, Text-led interpretation.”

1. Check Time: Default bail turns on statutory deadlines.
2. Check Possession: Arms Act liability can stand alone.
3. Check Text: Is it an “exception” or missing ingredient?

IRAC Outline

Glossary

Default Bail

Bail granted when the investigation/filing crosses statutory time without proper extension.

Possession

Knowing control over an item (here, prohibited weapons/ammunition).

Exception vs Ingredient

An exception excuses liability; an ingredient is a core element the prosecution must prove.