SC: 5 years in jail for Sanjay Dutt! - Page 8

While actor Sanjay Dutt's conviction under Arms Act and not under the much stricter Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act on Tuesday brought whoops of cheer to Bollywood and his countless fans, it left many uncomfortable questions unanswered, the main being -- can a law apply differently to different people facing similar charges in a single case?

On Monday, Manzoor Ahmed, one of the 10 accused of helping Dutt acquire, hide and then get rid of AK-56 rifles, a 9 mm pistol, some hand-grenades and ammunition, was convicted under TADA.

On Tuesday, just minutes before Dutt's conviction was declared, Zaibunnisa Kazi, another of that group of 10, was found guilty under TADA.

While both Manzoor and Zaibunissa have been convicted of "heading and abetting" a terrorist act under TADA, Dutt has been given a clean chit and convicted only for illegal possession of arms under the much milder Arms Act. This despite the fact that the weapons that Manzoor and Zaibunissa handled were actually ordered by Dutt and the two were only helping him.

Manzoor, in fact, was in possession of Dutt's guns for less than half-an-hour. He had accompanied gangster Abu Salem to Dutt's Pali Hill bungalow to collect the bag which contained five AK-56 rifles and hand grenades that Dutt did not want. Manzoor delivered the consignment at Zaibunissa's house in Jogeshwari.

The bag was in Zaibunissa's house for a day or so and was later collected by some other co-accused. What went against Zaibunissa in the case was the fact that she had opened the bag's zip and checked its contents out.

However, why the same yardstick was not used for Dutt, who was in possession of those arms and ammunition for a much longer period is a mystery.

The TADA court order on Tuesday was also mum on Dutt's attempt to destroy the evidence. The actor had called Yusuf Nalwallah from Mauritius asking him to collect an AK-56 rifle from his residence and destroy it. This was done after Dutt came to know that the cops were looking for the gun.

While Nalwallah, who followed the instructions and destroyed the gun, was on Tuesday convicted under Arms Act for destruction of evidence, the verdict is silent on Dutt's role in the same.

Satish Borulkar, Public Prosecutor at Bombay Hight Court, said he could not understand why a designated TADA court has given different verdicts for different people for same charges. "Now it is up to the prosecution to highlight the issue in the Supreme Court in their appeal," he said.

Y P singh, former IPS officer and now a practising lawyer, said Dutt should have been convicted under Section 5 (5) of TADA, which deals with illegal possession of weapons in a notified area.

Entire greater Mumbai was declared a notified area immediately after the 1992-93 communal riots.


* Section 5 of TADA

Where any person who is in possession of any arms and ammunition, specified under the Schedule I to the Arms Rules, 1962, or bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances unauthorisedly in a notified area, he shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine.