9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to interfere with: - Granting of sanction. - Taking cognizance. 2. Validity of the sanction order based on: - Non-application of mind. - Lack of reasons. - Absence of mention of breakdown of law enforcement machinery. - Non-mention of conspiracy. Summary: 1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to Interfere: The High Court under Article 226 should not interfere in cases where the allegations before the Designated Court ex facie can constitute an offence under TADA. The High Court cannot examine the merits of the allegations or conduct a pre-trial. This principle was supported by precedents such as *State of Maharashtra v. Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammed* and *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal*. The High Court should assume the allegations in the charge-sheet to be factually correct and examine the ingredients of the offence without adding or subtracting anything. 2. Validity of the Sanction Order: The High Court's finding that the sanction order was invalid due to non-application of mind and lack of reasons was incorrect. The sanctioning authority had perused all relevant materials, including witness statements, confessions, and expert opinions, before granting the sanction. The correctness of the sanction order should be examined during the trial, not at the pre-trial stage. The Court cited *State of Bihar v. PP Sharma* to support this view. Non-Mention of Breakdown of Law Enforcement Machinery: The High Court erred in holding that the breakdown of law-enforcing machinery is a condition precedent for prosecuting under TADA. The Supreme Court in *Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab* clarified that TADA is intended for the whole of India and does not require a breakdown of law-enforcing machinery. Conspiracy and Mens Rea: The High Court's finding that there was no conspiracy or mens rea was incorrect. The charge-sheet clearly mentioned the conspiracy to prepare and store bombs with the intent to strike terror among people. The preparation and possession of bombs are per se illegal acts and constitute a terrorist act under Section 3(1) of TADA. The existence of 26 live bombs indicated a conspiracy, and the intention to defend Muslims during communal riots did not negate the mens rea required under TADA. Taking Cognizance: The High Court's criticism of the Designated Court's order taking cognizance was unfounded. The Designated Court had perused the police papers, and the confessional statements of the accused were available. The High Court's approach was contrary to the decisions in *Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia* and *Niranjan Singh K.S. Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya*. Conclusion: The High Court exceeded its powers under Article 226 by quashing the orders of sanction and taking cognizance. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the Designated Court to proceed with the case in accordance with the law with utmost expedition. The criminal appeals were allowed accordingly.
|
