9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 20A(1) of TADA. 2. Validity of Sanction under Section 20A(2) of TADA. 3. Conviction under Section 3(5) of TADA. 4. Conviction under Section 3(4) of TADA. 5. Legality of confessional statements. 6. Validity of the raid and seizure of arms and ammunition. Summary: 1. Compliance with Section 20A(1) of TADA: The appellants contended that the requirement of prior approval from the District Superintendent of Police (DSP) before recording the FIR was not met. The court found that although written approvals were not believed, oral approval from the DSP was sufficient to legalize further action. The court noted that the FIR included an offence under the Explosive Substances Act, which did not require prior DSP approval, thus the FIR was not vitiated. 2. Validity of Sanction under Section 20A(2) of TADA: The sanction accorded by the Director of CBI was challenged on multiple grounds, including its sufficiency and the application of mind. The court held that the sanction was valid as it was based on the facts constituting the offences. The court also noted that any error or irregularity in the sanction must have caused a failure of justice to vitiate the prosecution, which was not the case here. 3. Conviction under Section 3(5) of TADA: The appellants argued that Section 3(5) was invalid due to vagueness and lack of evidence showing involvement in terrorist acts after 23.5.1993. The court agreed, stating that both membership in a terrorist gang and involvement in terrorist acts must occur after the enactment date. The court found no evidence of terrorist acts post-23.5.1993, leading to the setting aside of convictions under Section 3(5). 4. Conviction under Section 3(4) of TADA: The court examined whether A-7, A-8, A-9, and A-12 harbored terrorists. It held that mens rea was essential for the offence under Section 3(4). The court found no evidence that A-6 stayed in Hotel Hans Plaza or that A-7 knew A-6 was a terrorist. Similarly, there was no evidence that A-8 and A-9 knew the harbored individuals were terrorists. The conviction of A-12 (a company) was also set aside as companies cannot possess mens rea. 5. Legality of Confessional Statements: The court discussed the admissibility and use of confessional statements under Section 15 of TADA. It held that such confessions could only be used against co-accused if they were tried for the same offence. Since A-1 to A-3 were not tried for the same offence as A-4, their confessions could not be used against A-4. 6. Validity of the Raid and Seizure of Arms and Ammunition: The court upheld the prosecution's version of the raid on 23.7.1993, rejecting the defence's claim of illegal detention since 19.7.1993. The court found the evidence of police officers consistent and credible, despite the absence of independent witnesses. The court acquitted A-5 of the Arms Act charge due to lack of evidence that the knife he possessed met the specified dimensions in the notification. Conclusion: The court acquitted A-5 to A-9 and A-12. It also set aside the convictions of A-1 to A-3 under Section 3(5) of TADA and A-4 under Section 3(4) of TADA. However, it confirmed the convictions of A-1 to A-4 under Section 5 of TADA and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The court proposed enhancing the sentences for A-1 to A-4 under Section 5 of TADA and directed the Registry to serve notice for the same.
|
