LANDMARK CASE
Sanjay Dutt v. State
(1994) 5 SCC 410 · Supreme Court of India · Criminal law
At a glance
- Citation: (1994) 5 SCC 410
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Area of law: Criminal law
- In one line: Possession requires conscious possession, and the accused can show possession was not for terrorism.
1 Facts
The actor was charged under TADA for possessing arms.
2 Issue
What does 'possession' mean under TADA, and are defences open?
3 What the court decided
Possession requires conscious possession, and the accused can show possession was not for terrorism.
4 Why it matters
Shaped special law prosecutions.
5 Think about it
How does this limit special laws?
6 Analyse it yourself
Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.
7 More cases on Criminal law
- Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar AIR 1961 SC 1698
- Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
- Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 214
- Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor AIR 1925 PC 1
- Basdev v. State of PEPSU AIR 1956 SC 488
All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz
← Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of InvestigationSantosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra →
A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.