9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Validity of the first information report (FIR) under TADA without prior approval u/s 20-A(1). 2. Effect of approval by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department. 3. Consequence of non-compliance with Section 20-A(1) of TADA. 4. Applicability of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to cure defects. 5. Impact of the Designated Court's cognizance and trial decisions. 6. Validity of convictions under other penal provisions in the absence of TADA compliance. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of FIR under TADA without prior approval u/s 20-A(1): The accused contended that the FIR under TADA was registered without the required prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police as mandated by Section 20-A(1) of TADA. The prosecution claimed that such approval was granted by Deputy Commissioner A.R. Suroliya, who is of equivalent rank. However, the court found the evidence regarding the approval on 9th June 1994 unconvincing and rejected the prosecution's story of prior approval. Issue 2: Effect of approval by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department: The prosecution also relied on an approval dated 15th June 1994 by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department. The court held that while this approval was indeed given, it did not satisfy the statutory requirement of prior approval by the District Superintendent of Police as required by Section 20-A(1) of TADA. Issue 3: Consequence of non-compliance with Section 20-A(1) of TADA: The court emphasized that non-compliance with Section 20-A(1) of TADA, which mandates prior approval by the District Superintendent of Police, is not a mere procedural lapse but a substantive requirement. The absence of such approval vitiates the entire prosecution under TADA. Issue 4: Applicability of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to cure defects: The State argued that the defect of non-compliance with Section 20-A(1) could be cured under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court rejected this argument, stating that the omission to grant prior approval is not a curable defect under Section 465, as it goes to the root of the matter. Issue 5: Impact of the Designated Court's cognizance and trial decisions: The State contended that the Designated Court's decision to take cognizance and try the case rendered prior defects irrelevant. The court rejected this, stating that the Designated Court's decision to proceed with the trial does not prevent the accused from challenging the trial's validity based on non-compliance with statutory requirements. Issue 6: Validity of convictions under other penal provisions in the absence of TADA compliance: The court noted that while the Designated Court can try and convict under other penal laws if connected with TADA offences, the convictions under the Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act in this case were based on confessions recorded under TADA. Since the TADA convictions were vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 20-A(1), the confessions could not be used to support convictions under other laws. Consequently, those convictions were also set aside. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of the convicted accused, setting aside their convictions and sentences. The appeals by the State against acquittals and for inadequacy of sentences were dismissed. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory safeguards to prevent misuse of TADA, underscoring that strict compliance with procedural requirements is essential to uphold the rule of law.
|
