Sanjay's Tada acquittal under lens

MUMBAI: Sanjay Dutt's friends, family and fans might be terming his six-year jail sentence as too harsh, but some legal experts have started questioning his acquittal under Tada in the first place.

The criticism, this time, is not based solely on the disparity that while other accused in a similar case were convicted under Tada, Dutt was let off. Criminal lawyer KTS Tulsi, who opposed Dutt's bail plea in the Supreme Court in 1994, said the very reasons given by judge P D Kode to deny the probation plea filed by the actor were enough to find him guilty under Tada. According to Tulsi, the judge had himself said Dutt was found in possession of an AK-56 rifle, an assault weapon capable of mass destruction. Moreover, he had also noted Dutt's past association with underworld characters such as Dawood Ibrahim and Anees Ibrahim. These should have been considered sufficient to nail Dutt under Tada, Tulsi added.

Former IPS officer and lawyer Y P Singh voiced similar views. "In 1994, a five-judge SC bench had said if a person was found in possession of a deadly weapon like AK-56 in a notified area, then the presumption was that it was meant for a terrorist act," said Singh.

In that year, Dutt filed several bail applications in the apex court which were all repeatedly turned down. Finally, the case went to a bench of five judges presided over by Justice A M Ahmadi. All the judges concurred with the judgment of Justice J S Verma, which upheld the charge under Section 5 of Tada against Dutt. The SC noted that Dutt himself had confessed in his then unretracted confession that he had obtained three AK-56 rifles and returned two of them after a few days, while keeping one for self-defence.

The SC also noted the charge against Dutt of procuring, in addition to three AK-56 rifles, 25 hand grenades and one 9 mm pistol from Anees Ibrahim Kaskar through Sameer Ahmad Hingora, Hanif Kadawala, Baba Ibrahim Musa Chauhan and Abu Salem. The apex court held that the mere act of conscious possession of an unauthorised weapon in a notified area was sufficient for a conviction under Tada. The prosecution was not required to prove that the weapon was meant to be used for a terrorist purpose. "From that order it seems that the SC may not take such a lenient view of Dutt and may even enhance his punishment, holding him guilty under Tada," said Singh. "The apex court will have to appreciate the evidence again and decide whether acquittal under Tada was justified or not," said special public prosecutor Rohini Salian. Criminal lawyer Majeed Memon, however, differed. He said any order passed by a judge was according to his subjective satisfaction and that in Dutt's case Judge Kode said while his offence was serious enough to deny probation, it was not an act fit for the terrorist tag.