Anything Else

TADA court ordered 6 years jail to Sanjay Dutt for possessing illegal weapons.

What he did, was a victim less crime. In US and many other countries he would not have been wrong at all. It might be debatable that possessing arms is wrong, but it would be completely wrong to say that there is no reason to possess one. It was after the riots in Mumbai that he acquired those arms, in self defense. What is immoral about it? Technically wrong, agreed, but immoral?

"I must say for every citizen, laws of the nation shall be respected. If you don't, I don't expect you to be called a moral person," Kode said.
 

So what he means is every person who is wrong on technical grounds is wrong on moral grounds, and technicality is the only definition of morality? Judge Kode himself later agrees that Mr Dutt's act was not immoral, why then the misleading argument?

Further:

Kode also observed it was an "eminently dangerous act" as the weapon possessed by Dutt was capable of mass destruction though the accused had not used the weapons.

I guess Sanjay Dutt had lighter and matches too, I guess it was "eminent" that he was going to set ablaze a few petrol pumps and buildings, and he had access to cars too, pedestal walkers should consider their death "eminent". Wouldn't it been easy for judges if possessing means of potential crime is enough to prove the guilt for crime, but we are lucky and thankful that so is not the case.

Kode said the character of the accused is very important while considering if they deserved relief under the POA(sic, POTA) Act. He pointed out that apart from possessing the weapons, Dutt was a close acquaintance of Anees Ibrahim and attended a party hosted by Dawood Ibrahim in Dubai.

The character of the accused. It is so easy to judge, isn't it, Dutt knew those criminals, he attended their parties, and was friends with them. Being friend with criminals is now criminal? What about his friends then? And his friends friends? Is prosecutor's case completely based on bull shit? He had gun, and I am full of shit, so please your honor punish him!

It was for self defense.

If there is any situation that will become better thanks to easy gun access, it is riots. Rioters don't use guns to riot. Rioters are general population, the person sitting next to you may have stabbed a few had he got a chance of being on the favorable side of mob. One has to understand such riot, they are not precursor to civil war, and unless they are precursor to civil war, any amount of guns in the mix will only defuse the situation. Can things go the civil war way? Civil war does not depend on possession of guns, it depends on the lack or dissatisfaction with governance. A gun shot is a serious affair, guns are registered, any shot scares the hell out of people, if I have one, and 20 people step on my door with torches and swords, they will be deterred by the gun. What if they had guns themselves? The stakes will be higher. If the rules of fight were that only knives and swords are allowed, fight will last much longer, and the outnumbered has no real chance of inflicting damage on the rioters, and rioters can march virtually without any consequence to 20 houses one by one. If guns were allowed, anyone shooting in the crowd will get someone, and at-least a death of rioter is guaranteed even if rioting against a single person. Police is no where to be found in those situation, you are on your own, and gun is your only defense. Sure if those 20 people out to murder me had guns, I can be killed sooner, but I get a chance to inflict some damage myself, that my kitchen knife will not give me. Those 20 will kill me no matter what, if they are empty handed, have ropes, knives, sword, or guns. I can kill *only* when I have gun. The problem is not gun, the problem is 20 people who decide to murder someone, and while state and police should do something about it, I should not be denied my right to self defense.

If you can't understand this, may be you can't understand.

Here is the Indian Arms Act 1959, on penalties page, these are the following sections that apply to this case:

27. Punishment for possessing arms, etc., with intent to use them for unlawful purpose
 
Whoever has in his possession any arms or ammunition with intent to use the same for any unlawful purpose or to enable any other person to use the same for any unlawful purpose shall, whether such unlawful purpose has been carried into effect or not, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

The intent to use the guns for unlawful purpose was not proved so this can not apply. Then:

28. Punishment for use and possession of firearms of firearms or imitation firearms in certain cases

Whoever makes or attempts to make any use whatsoever of a firearm or an imitation firearm with intent to resist or prevent the lawful arrest or detention of himself or any other person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

Explanation.---In this section the expression "limitation firearm" has the same meaning as in section 6.

Emphasis mine. This was also not the case.

Finally:

29. Punishment for knowingly purchasing arms, etc., from unlicensed person or for delivering arms, etc., to person not entitled to possess the same Whoever---

(a) purchases any firearms or any other arms of such class or description as may be prescribed or any ammunition from any other person knowing that such other person is not licensed or authorised under section 5; or

(b) delivers any arms or ammunition into the possession of another person without previously ascertaining that such other person is entitled by virtue of this Act or any other law for the time being in force to have, and is not prohibited by this Act or such other law from having, in his possession the same;

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

This applies. 6 months.

Section 30 [Punishment for contravention of licence or rule] may or may not apply depending on the details of the case, but again, the punishment: 3 months.

I am not making this up, this is what he should be given, maximum of 6 months! He has already done more than a year in the jail.

Oh yeah, there is TADA, a law that has been repealed, that talks about terrorism, which does not apply here. Everything is wrong with this case.

Let me repeat what the judge said:

Kode, however, said the crimes committed by Dutt and his friends Adajania and Nulwalla were not "anti-social, ghastly, inhuman, immoral or pre-planned" and did not cause any harm to the general public.

Morally he does not deserve 6 years. He does not legally deserve 6 years for unlawful possession of arms, possession of arms act forces a upper limit of 6 months for very act he is accused of. He does not deserve to be punished like a terrorist, Judge says he had done nothing anit-social, terrorism would be anit-social one would say. Then why does he have to do 6 years instead of 6 months?

This is judiciaries desperate attempt to say, see we are still alive, we can punish with vengeance in high profile cases. His only crime is being high profile. This is not the case in which justice was done, and someone has to pay the price for this mistake. He has to go to jail because he attended some parties. And this happens when judiciary tries to make a statement about justice. Wonder what happens on day to day life there. 

Sad sad day today.