ANIL vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) and Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, for possessing an unlicensed firearm in a notified area. The Court found that the prosecution had established the appellant's possession of a working revolver and ammunition, and the evidence provided by police witnesses was credible and reliable. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment and sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment.