If Sanjay Dutt was not guilty of an offence under TADA, then why did the TADA court convict him of an offence under Arms Act? If his offence was a non-TADA offence, he should have been referred to an ordinary court for trial and punishment/acquittal. Does a TADA court have jurisdiction under ordinary laws also? Isn't that a duplication of the jurisdiction of other courts?
Why did the learned judge think that Sanjay Dutt was likely to be dangerous to society? He has been an offender under Arms Act. Having acquired a forbidden firearm, he has not used that firearm, nor has he collaborated with anyone in terrorist or non-terrorist offences.
His offence has been compounded by his effort to destroy an AK-56.
Perhaps the judge was constrained by Arms Act which prescribes RI of 5 to 10 years for an offence under Arms Act. It seems Arms Act allows no discretion to a judge in the matter of sentence - if someone has been convicted under the Act.
The judge says that Sanjay Dutt was not accessory to a terrorist offence. Nor does any one think that he was likely in the future to commit a terrorist offence. In fact no one thinks that he is likely to commit any offence at all.
Laws should be used for better ordering of human affairs and not for blindly applying a law to punish somebody.
The judgement seems to have been within the four corners of the law but it operates in effect to hand out excessive punishment for a rather minor offence.
