Spot-fixing: SC agrees to hear PIL to stay IPL matches

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to give an urgent hearing to a PIL seeking stay on all remaining matches of IPL in view of the spot-fixing scandal.

A bench of justices B S Chauhan and Deepak Misra posted the matter for further hearing at 2 PM on the PIL which is also seeking setting up of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into the issues of match fixing and other alleged irregularities in the IPL.

The petition by Lucknow resident Sudarsh Awasthi has made all IPL franchises and BCCI party in the case along with the Centre.

"There are many irregularities in the IPL beginning from auction of players. Black money and money from anti-social elements are involved in the IPL which needs to be probed," the petition submitted.

It sought a stay on remaining four matches including final match of the IPL till the probe is completed.

Eighteen people -- three IPL players, four former players and 11 bookies and their assistants -- have been arrested since last Thursday in connection with the spot-fixing scandal that has rocked the cricketing world.

Arrests for social media posts: section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act.

The Supreme Court said that no person should be arrested for posting objectionable comments on social networking sites without taking prior permission from senior police officials.

The apex court, which refused to pass an order for a blanket ban on the arrest of a person for making objectionable comments on websites, said state governments should ensure strict compliance of the Centre's January 9 advisory which said that a person should not be arrested without taking permission from senior police officials.

"We direct the state governments to ensure compliance with the guidelines (issued by Centre) before making any arrest," a bench of justices B S Chauhan and Dipak Misra said.

It said the court cannot pass an order for banning all arrest in such cases as operation of section 66A (pertaining to objectionable comments) of the Information Technology Act has not been stayed by the apex court which is examining its constitutional validity.

In view of public outrage over people being arrested for making comments or liking posts on Facebook, Centre had on January 9 issued advisory to all states and UTs asking them not to arrest a person in such cases without prior approval of a senior police officer.

The advisory issued by the Centre says that, "State governments are advised that as regard to arrest of any person in complaint registered under section 66A of the Information Technology Act, the concerned police officer of a police station may not arrest any person until she/he has obtained prior approval of such arrest from an officer, not below the rank of inspector general of police (IGP) in metropolitan cities or of an officer not below the rank of deputy commissioner of police (DCP) or superintendent of police (SP) at district level, as the case may be."

The apex court was hearing an application seeking its direction to the authorities not to take action for posting objectionable comments during the pendency of a case before it pertaining to constitutional validity of  

The section states that any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or communication device, any information that was grossly offensive or has a menacing character could be punished with imprisonment for a maximum term of three years, besides imposition of appropriate fine.

The petition was also filed regarding the arrest of a Hyderabad-based woman activist, who was sent to jail over her Facebook post in which certain "objectionable" comments were made against Tamil Nadu Governor K Rosaiah and Congress MLA Amanchi Krishna Mohan. After filing of the petition, she was released by a district court at Hyderabad.

Jaya Vindhayal, the state general secretary of People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), was arrested on May 12 under section 66A of the IT Act for the "objectionable" post.

According to the police, she had also allegedly distributed pamphlets making objectionable allegations against Rosaiah and Mohan before posting the comments online.

The matter was mentioned before the bench by law student Shreya Singhal, seeking an urgent hearing in the case, saying the police is taking action in such matters even though a PIL challenging validity of section 66A is pending before the apex court.

She had filed the PIL after two girls - Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan - were arrested in Palghar in Thane district under section 66A of IT Act after one of them posted a comment against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray's death and the other 'liked' it.

On November 30, 2012, the apex court had sought response from the Centre on the amendment and misuse of section 66A of IT Act and had also directed the Maharashtra government to explain the circumstances under which the 21-year-old girls were arrested.

Pursuant to the notice issued by the apex court, the Centre had informed it that the controversial provision in the cyber law under which two girls were arrested for Facebook comments did not curb freedom of speech and alleged "high handedness" of certain authorities did not mean that it was bad in law.

The ministry of communication and information technology in its affidavit had said that an advisory had been issued to all the state governments, saying that due diligence and care may be exercised while dealing with cases arising out of the alleged misuse of cyberspace.

The Maharashtra government in its reply had said the arrests of girls in Thane district were "unwarranted" and "hasty", which "cannot be justified".

The state government had also submitted an affidavit stating that the Thane Police SP (Rural) had been suspended for arresting the two girls despite the instruction by the IGP not to take such action.

The court had earlier issued notices and sought responses from governments of Delhi, West Bengal and Puducherry where a professor and a businessman were arrested under section 66A of the Act for a political cartoon and tweeting against a politician respectively.

HC raps Punjab govt for inaction against Honey Singh for "Main hoon Balatkari " song

Punjab government on Tuesday received rap on its knuckles from the Punjab and Haryana high court for not taking any action against Punjabi rapper Honey Singh, who is in storm of controversy for singing lewd song.

"Why the Punjab government has not taken cognizance of "Main hoon Balatkari "song sung by Honey Singh, even though it attracts the provisions of Section 294 IPC, which is a cognizable offence?" "If you go through the article published in The Times of India, compiling such lewd songs, which has been attached with the petition, your head will hang with shame." remarked the acting chief justice, Jasbir Singh with utmost anguish and pain.

"We are sure, you would not be able to go through the complete song "Main hoon Balatkari", a visibly annoyed Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain told the Punjab government counsel.

Taking up the case on Tuesday, division bench comprising acting chief justice Jasbir Singh and Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, also directed the Punjab government to take appropriate action against the singer for the vulgar song.

Meanwhile, singer Honey Singh, who was directed by the HC on April 25 to appear before it, could not appear before the court on account of non-completion of summoning process.

The HC thereupon directed that fresh summons shall be served on him through ordinary post, registered post as well as through e-mail to ensure his presence before the HC on July 4.

During the hearing of the case, HC also observed "song of Honey Singh, available on youtube, indicates that it was sung at a concert in Gurgaon. Thus, it cannot be said that no action can be taken against its singer as it could possibly be uploaded on youtube from any where in the world."

Thereafter, bench ordered to implead the Haryana government as well as UT administration as respondents in this case asking them to take action in accordance with law on the issue of vulgar songs.

The matter had reached before the HC through a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by NGO called HELP of Nawanshar in Punjab seeking directions to set up some effective mechanism for curbing the menace of obscene/vulgar/lewd songs from the state of Punjab. PIL filed through advocate H C Arora had submitted that all limits of decency are being violated by such songs. Arora referred to provisions of section 294 of Indian Penal code (IPC), according to which singing of lewd/ obscene songs at public places is an offence.

HC advice to youth

Turning towards a large number of young people who had gathered inside the court room on Tuesday, the bench gave them also a bit of advice - "These young men have come to the HC for seeing Honey Singh. They should rather boycott such singers who sing lewd and obscene songs. These young men should realize that our culture is being spoiled by such vulgar songs."

1993 Mumbai serial blasts case: SC rejects Sanjay Dutt's review plea

Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt's hope of getting relief in 1993 Mumbai blasts case was on Friday dashed with the Supreme Court dismissing his plea seeking review of its judgement on his conviction and five-year jail term.

A bench of justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan, which had delivered on March 21 verdict, refused to review its verdict on Dutt's plea.

Dutt, who was granted four weeks more time to surrender to undergo remaining three-and-a-half-year jail term, will have to surrender before jail authorities on May 16.

With the dismissal of review plea, 53-year-old Dutt has got only one option of getting relief from the court by filing a curative petition.

The apex court had on March 21 upheld his conviction in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case which it said was organised by underworld don Dawood Ibrahim and others with the involvement of Pakistan's ISI.

However, the apex court had reduced to five years the six-year jail term awarded to Dutt by a designated TADA court in 2006 and ruled out his release on probation, saying the "nature" of his offence was "serious".

Dutt was convicted by the TADA court for illegal possession a 9 mm pistol and an AK-56 rifle which were part of a consignment of weapons and explosives brought to India for coordinated serial blasts that killed 257 people and injured over 700 in 1993.

The bench also dismissed similar pleas filed by other six convicts in the case.

Other six convicts, who filed review petitions are Yusuf Mohsin Nulwalla, Khalil Ahmed Sayed Ali Nazir, Mohamed Dawood Yusuf Khan, Shaikh Asif Yusuf, Muzammil Umar Kadri and Mohd Ahmed Shaikh.

SC slams Centre for providing security to Ambani

NEW DELHI: Centre's decision to provide 'Z' category security to the richest Indian Mukesh Ambani on Wednesday drew flak from the Supreme Court which asked why such people are given security cover by the government when the common man is feeling unsafe.

The apex court ticked off the government for giving protection to such people when the common man in the country is unsafe because of lack of security and said that a five-year-old girl would not have been raped if there was proper security in the capital.

The bench reasoned that the rich can afford to hire private security personnel.

"We read in newspapers that ministry of home has directed providing for CISF security to an individual. Why is state providing security to such person?" a bench headed by Justice GS Singhvi said without taking the name of Ambani.

"If there is threat perception then he must engage private security personnel," the bench said adding, "Private businessmen getting security is prevalent in Punjab but that culture has gone to Mumbai."

The bench, however, said that "We are not concerned about the security of X,Y,Z persons but about the security of common man".

The bench was hearing a petition filed by a Uttar Pradesh resident on misuse security cover and red beacon provided by the government to people.

Government's decision to provide Z had evoked sharp criticism from Left parties following which it was clarified that he will foot the expenses for this estimated to be Rs 15-16 lakh per month.

The business tycoon is the new entrant to the 'Z' category VIP security club after the Union home ministry had recently approved an armed commando squad following threat perceptions.

Consumer is king': SC clears hurdles for FDI in retail

The Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the hurdles for the implementation of FDI in multi-brand retail sector saying that the "consumer is king and if that is the philosophy working behind the policy then what is wrong?"

The apex court said the policy aimed at "throwing out" the middleman, who are "curse to Indian economy" and "sucking" it, has to be "welcomed".

A bench headed by Justice RM Lodha said the policy does not suffer from any unconstitutionality or illegality requiring it to be quashed.

"This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstituional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power.

"The impugned policy cannot be said to suffer from any of the vires," the bench, also comprising justices Madan B Lokur and Kurien Jospeh, held while dismissing a PIL challenging the notification on the FDI in multi-brand retail sector.

Before pronouncing the order, the bench said the policy was for the benefit of the consumer, farmers and the retailers with the objective to eliminate middlemen.

"Consumer is the king and if that is the philosophy working behind the policy what is wrong. The policy is to free the economy from the middleman. Middleman is sucking our economy. These are suckers to be thrown out for direct benefit of consumers. If that is the objective of the policy what is wrong with it.

"The middleman is a curse to Indian economy. They work as sucker and they have to be thrown out and that is the object of the policy and you have to welcome it," the bench said and added that the policy would bring choice for the consumers who are the real king.

The bench in its order said "it is thus left to the choice of state governments whether or not to implement policy to allow FDI upto 51 per cent in multi-brand retail".

It rejected the contention that departement of industrial policy and promotion (DIPP) under its business rule was not empowered to make policy pronouncment.

The apex court further said there was no merit in the contention that the Centre has no authority to formulate FDI policy and the PIL filed by advocate ML Sharma has to be dismissed as "there is no challenge to the amendements in Foreign Exchange Management (transfer or issue of security by a person, resident, outside India) Regulations, 2000, by which FDI in multi-brand retail sector was allowed.

While upholding the policy, the bench said, "We have carefully considered the submission made by petitioners and the challenge is not founded on any material".

During the hearing, the bench said the policy of FDI in multi-brand retail was discussed and debated in detail in both Houses of Parliament before it was voted in favour of the government.

The bench noted that the policy was prepared after detail study of the economy of developing countries like China, Brazil, Argentina, Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand where FDI is permitted upto 100 per cent, local retailers co-exist along with organised retail and are integral in the organised retail chain.

In the order, the bench accepted the submission made by the Centre in its affidavit in which it said that the decision to allow FDI in multi-brand retail is a policy formulated by the Government of India in conformity with FEMA 2000.

While formulating the policy, the primary focus was to benefit the consumer by enlarging the choice of purchase at more affordable prices and by eradicating the traditional trade intermediaries/middleman to facilitate better access to the market (ultimate retailer) for the producer of goods.

The affidavit had said farmers will also benefit significantly from the option of direct sales to organised retailers.

The apex court also noted that a study commissioned by the World Bank shows that the average price that a farmer receives for a typical horticulture product is only 12-15 per cent of the price the consumer pays at the retail outlet.

Profit realisation for farmers selling directly to organised retailers is about 60 per cent higher than that received from selling in the 'mandi'.

The affidavit had said these aforesaid views are supported through the findings of a study instituted by government on the subject of 'Impact of organised retailing on the unorganised sector', through the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), submitted in May 2008.

Consumer is king': SC clears hurdles for FDI in retail

The Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the hurdles for the implementation of FDI in multi-brand retail sector saying that the "consumer is king and if that is the philosophy working behind the policy then what is wrong?"

The apex court said the policy aimed at "throwing out" the middleman, who are "curse to Indian economy" and "sucking" it, has to be "welcomed".

A bench headed by Justice RM Lodha said the policy does not suffer from any unconstitutionality or illegality requiring it to be quashed.

"This court does not interfere in the policy matter unless the policy is unconstituional, contrary to statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or there is total abuse of power.

"The impugned policy cannot be said to suffer from any of the vires," the bench, also comprising justices Madan B Lokur and Kurien Jospeh, held while dismissing a PIL challenging the notification on the FDI in multi-brand retail sector.

Before pronouncing the order, the bench said the policy was for the benefit of the consumer, farmers and the retailers with the objective to eliminate middlemen.

"Consumer is the king and if that is the philosophy working behind the policy what is wrong. The policy is to free the economy from the middleman. Middleman is sucking our economy. These are suckers to be thrown out for direct benefit of consumers. If that is the objective of the policy what is wrong with it.

"The middleman is a curse to Indian economy. They work as sucker and they have to be thrown out and that is the object of the policy and you have to welcome it," the bench said and added that the policy would bring choice for the consumers who are the real king.

The bench in its order said "it is thus left to the choice of state governments whether or not to implement policy to allow FDI upto 51 per cent in multi-brand retail".

It rejected the contention that departement of industrial policy and promotion (DIPP) under its business rule was not empowered to make policy pronouncment.

The apex court further said there was no merit in the contention that the Centre has no authority to formulate FDI policy and the PIL filed by advocate ML Sharma has to be dismissed as "there is no challenge to the amendements in Foreign Exchange Management (transfer or issue of security by a person, resident, outside India) Regulations, 2000, by which FDI in multi-brand retail sector was allowed.

While upholding the policy, the bench said, "We have carefully considered the submission made by petitioners and the challenge is not founded on any material".

During the hearing, the bench said the policy of FDI in multi-brand retail was discussed and debated in detail in both Houses of Parliament before it was voted in favour of the government.

The bench noted that the policy was prepared after detail study of the economy of developing countries like China, Brazil, Argentina, Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand where FDI is permitted upto 100 per cent, local retailers co-exist along with organised retail and are integral in the organised retail chain.

In the order, the bench accepted the submission made by the Centre in its affidavit in which it said that the decision to allow FDI in multi-brand retail is a policy formulated by the Government of India in conformity with FEMA 2000.

While formulating the policy, the primary focus was to benefit the consumer by enlarging the choice of purchase at more affordable prices and by eradicating the traditional trade intermediaries/middleman to facilitate better access to the market (ultimate retailer) for the producer of goods.

The affidavit had said farmers will also benefit significantly from the option of direct sales to organised retailers.

The apex court also noted that a study commissioned by the World Bank shows that the average price that a farmer receives for a typical horticulture product is only 12-15 per cent of the price the consumer pays at the retail outlet.

Profit realisation for farmers selling directly to organised retailers is about 60 per cent higher than that received from selling in the 'mandi'.

The affidavit had said these aforesaid views are supported through the findings of a study instituted by government on the subject of 'Impact of organised retailing on the unorganised sector', through the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), submitted in May 2008.

CBI's independent position must be restored: SC on coalgate

In a big embarrassment to the government in the coalgate case, the Supreme Court on Tuesday termed as "very disturbing" the CBI affidavit on sharing its report with the law minister and others and slammed the agency for having kept the court in the dark on the issue.

Hearing the coal blocks allocation scam case in a packed courtroom, the bench said "suppression" of the fact that CBI has shared its probe report with the government is "not ordinary".

A bench headed by Justice R M Lodha observed that there was a "very disturbing feature" in the affidavit filed on April 26 by CBI director Ranjit Sinha and the agency must be restored to its independent position.

Sinha, in his two-page affidavit filed in the apex court, had said that the agency's status report on coal allocation scam was "shared" with law minister Ashwani Kumar and senior officials of PMO and coal ministry "as desired by them".

The apex court said that sharing of information with the government about the probe into the scam has "shaken the entire process" and CBI need not take instructions from "political masters" on their probe.

"Our first exercise will be to liberate CBI from political interference," the bench said.

The SC asked the CBI what authority did the law minister and joint secretaries in the PMO and coal ministry had to summon status report of an ongoing probe looked into by the court.

The SC wanted to know from the CBI director by Monday who others had seen the report apart from the minister and two joint secretaries in the PMO and coal ministry. The apex court asked the CBI to file a fresh affidavit.

The SC has put the next hearing in the case on May 8.

The SC also sought details of the officers of the CBI engaged in investigating coal scam and did not approve of the supervising officer Ravi Kant being allowed to be transferred to the Intelligence Bureau.

The apex court also issued a warning to the coal ministry after the CBI said that it was not getting relevant materials regarding the coal block allocation from the ministry.

In his affidavit, the CBI director had said, "I submit that the draft of the same (status report) was shared with law minister as desired by him prior to its submission before the Supreme Court. Besides the political executive, it was also shared with one joint secretary level officer each of Prime Minister's Office and ministry of coal as desired by them."

The CBI director had also assured the apex court that the agency will not share further status reports in this case with any member of the political executive.

Sinha's affidavit had contradicted the claim made by additional solicitor general Haren Raval on behalf of CBI on March 12 that the probe report in the scam has not been shared with any member of the government and it has only been shared with the apex court after being vetted by the CBI director.

The affidavit was filed in compliance with the Supreme Court's order which, in an unprecedented move on March 12, had directed the CBI director to assure the court that the status report in the coalgate scam is not being shared with the government.

Today's hearing came a day after Raval shot off a letter to attorney general G E Vahanvati in which he alleged that he has been made a "scapegoat" in the matter.

Raval is also believed to have accused Vahanvati of trying to interfere in CBI's probe report.

Earlier, the CBI and the Centre had clashed over the coalgate scam. The agency had told the court that there have been "arbitrary allotments without scrutiny" in the coal blocks allocation during the UPA-I tenure.

The government had refuted its findings saying that the "CBI is not the final word on this."

In the status report filed by CBI on March 8, the agency had said that the coal block allocation during 2006-09 was done without verifying the credentials of companies which allegedly misrepresented facts about themselves and no rationale was given by the coal ministry in giving coal blocks to them.

Meanwhile, Congress core group is meeting to chalk out a plan to deal with the crisis.

The CBI officials are also engaged in an emergency meeting to discuss the SC observations.

(With inputs from PTI)

No property tax on mobile towers: HC

AHMEDABAD: In a set back for the state government, Gujarat high court on Thursday ruled that it cannot levy property tax on mobile towers and struck down the amendment made in the local laws.

Granting petitions filed by telecom companies, the HC quashed section 145 of Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (amendment) Act, 2011. And this would mandate the state government and the civic bodies to refund the tax, and the amount may run in crore of rupees.

The bench of Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sonia Gokani upheld the arguments put forth by the telecom companies, said their counsel Shalin Mehta. They contended that the mobile towers are nothing but telegraph and falls in plant and machinery category. They are certainly not buildings, and therefore the state legislature cannot levy property tax on them. The government has got a right to impose property tax on land and buildings only.

It was also contended that the state government cannot legislate in this regard and only Parliament has got the power to make legislation and amendments in the telegraph act. The amendments made in the law are in contradiction with the provisions made in the Constitution. Hence the court struck down the amendments made in legislation for imposing tax on mobile towers.

Will sexual harassment law at work stem the scourge?

Sexual harassment at workplaces will now officially be an offence with the President of India on Friday giving his assent to the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Bill, 2013.

The legislation which has been long overdue addresses a broad range of offences in office spaces such as sexual favours, offensive remarks, physical advances or display of pornographic material. The need for such a law has all the more been felt given the swelling female participation in the labour market.

While the legislation is certainly welcome, whether it will actually stem the tide of harassment remains to be seen. After all, the Supreme Court had way back in 1997 addressed the issue of sexual harassment in workplaces in what was popularly called the Vishaka judgment and instituted a guideline for offices to follow. Sadly, over 15 years since the landmark judgment very few corporate or even public offices have worked towards implementing its provisions.

For instance, the court had suggested that all offices institute a complaints committee which could probe complaints from female employees and pursue criminal proceedings, if need be. However, such cells are still largely lacking in India Inc.

The issue of bringing harassment in workplaces to the fore is already plagued by many challenges including unequal power relations between the employer and employee, the lack of job security in the wake of complaints or the ability to speak out amongst ones peers. The lack of an enabling environment deals a further blow.

It is essential that all the stakeholders, the government, India Inc and civil society now work towards effectively implementing the law. It will truly signal a more inclusive labour market.

Blood allocation to public hospitals: HC reserves order

AHMEDABAD: Gujarat high court on Thursday reserved its decision on a demand that private blood banks should deposit certain portion of blood collected through donations with either public or charitable hospitals. This was an interim relief sought in the PIL.

Petitioner Ashok Naik through advocate Parth Contractor has filed a PIL questioning the profiteering by private blood bank by sale of blood and its like plasma at a high rate after collecting blood free of cost. He has demanded strict implementation of the laws so that the blood supply becomes regular to hospitals and people do not have to shell out huge amount for the same.

The petitioner on Thursday objected to the proposals made by some blood banks for setting up of a committee to form guidelines. Public prosecutor Prakash Jani submitted that various existing laws should be followed for collection and supply of blood and the needy should get the service. There was also a demand by certain blood banks that specific banks should be restricted from collecting blood from beyond a prescribed 100 kilometre distance. Prathama Blood Centre has been accused of collecting blood from residents of areas as far as border district of Kutch.

The details sought by the HC from 142 private blood banks and from 52 that sell plasma reveal that in last three years, the banks sold blood collecting Rs 11.35 crore to drug manufacturing companies. Of this, eight blood banks have made 60% of total business and Prathama's sell is nearly 25% of total blood sale to pharmaceutical companies.

When the figures of sale of plasma by private blood banks were found running into crore, senior counsel Jani submitted that there should be a system so that the amount generated from plasma sale can be ploughed back in the blood collection and distribution activities so that the donors and the end users get benefits, and that the high profiteering can be eliminated. The HC would continue proceedings on this issue after deciding on the interim relief sought for.

Supreme Court gives Sanjay Dutt four more weeks to surrender

The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted Sanjay Dutt four more weeks to surrender and undergo his remaining prison term of 42 months in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case.

The apex court granted partial relief to the actor on "humanitarian" grounds, a day before the deadline for his surrender ended on April 18.

Sanjay Dutt had sought a six-month extension to allow him to complete shooting of seven films worth Rs 278 crore.

"Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and reasons stated in the petition, we are not inclined to extend the time by six months. However, we extend the time by four weeks from tomorrow. It is made clear that no further extension will be granted," a bench comprising justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan said.

The court said that the actor will not be entitled to any further extension of time hereafter.

The bench also noted in its order that senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Dutt, has agreed to the same that no further extension will be sought.

The CBI opposed the extension of time but was silenced by the court which asked, why didn't the agency file an appeal against Dutt's acquittal from TADA charges by the trial court?

In its order on March 21, the apex court had upheld Dutt's conviction under the Arms Act for possessing illegal arms.

However, it had reduced his sentence from six to five years.

Sanjay Dutt has completed one-and-half years in jail and has to serve the remainder three-and-half years of his sentence.