Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat appealed against the acquittal of three respondents by the Designated Judge, Jamnagar, in Special TADA Case Nos.3/1994, 3/1997, and 1/2005. The respondents were charged with offences under the Indian Penal Code (Sections 121, 121A, 122 read with 34), TADA (Sections 3, 4, 5), Arms Act, 1959, Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933. The case arose from a raid on the residence of respondent No.1, Anwar Osman Sumbhaniya, on 18 June 1993, where foreign-made firearms, ammunition, and a walkie-talkie set were recovered. Respondent No.2 was arrested later and made a confessional statement under Section 15 of TADA, while respondent No.3 was arrested in 2005. The Designated Court framed charges on 12 September 2005, but before examining the merits, it considered the validity of the prior approval under Section 20A(1) and prior sanction under Section 20A(2) of TADA. The court found that the prior approval was based on oral approval, which it considered invalid, and that the sanction orders (Exh.84 for respondents 1 and 2, and Exh.57 for respondent 3) suffered from non-application of mind. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution could not proceed under TADA and acquitted the respondents. The State appealed, arguing that the Designated Court erred in its findings on the validity of the approval and sanction, and that it should have transferred the case to a regular court under Section 18 of TADA instead of acquitting. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of the sanctioning authorities, and found that the sanction order (Exh.84) was a mechanical reproduction of the chargesheet without any indication of independent application of mind. The Court noted that the sanctioning authority, A.K. Tandon, had not considered the material on record before granting sanction. Similarly, the sanction for respondent No.3 was also found lacking. The Supreme Court held that the Designated Court was correct in concluding that the sanction was invalid, and therefore, the prosecution under TADA could not proceed. The Court also rejected the argument that the Designated Court should have transferred the case, holding that the Designated Court had the power to acquit if it found the sanction invalid and the evidence insufficient. The appeals were dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondents was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 20A(2) - Prior Sanction - Validity - The Designated Court held that the sanction order (Exh.84) granted by A.K. Tandon, DGP, suffered from non-application of mind as it was a mechanical reproduction of the chargesheet without independent consideration of material - The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the sanctioning authority had not applied his mind to the facts of the case - Held that the sanction was invalid and the prosecution could not proceed under TADA (Paras 6-9). B) Criminal Law - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 20A(1) - Prior Approval - Oral Approval - The Designated Court had doubted the validity of prior oral approval, but the Supreme Court noted that the three-Judge Bench in State of A.P. v. A. Sathyanarayana holds that oral approval followed by written approval may be valid - However, the Court did not need to decide this issue as the sanction under Section 20A(2) was found invalid (Paras 7-8). C) Criminal Law - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 15 - Confessional Statement - Admissibility - The Designated Court held that without a valid sanction under Section 20A(2), the confessional statement recorded under Section 15 of TADA is not admissible - The Supreme Court agreed that the confessional statement cannot be looked at once the prosecution fails on account of lack of valid sanction (Para 6). D) Criminal Law - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 18 - Transfer to Regular Court - The appellant argued that the Designated Court should have transferred the case to a regular court under Section 18 instead of acquitting - The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the Designated Court had the power to acquit if it found the sanction invalid and the evidence insufficient (Paras 7, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prior sanction under Section 20A(2) of TADA was valid and whether the Designated Court could acquit the respondents for lack of valid sanction.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the acquittal of the respondents, holding that the prior sanction under Section 20A(2) TADA was invalid due to non-application of mind, and the Designated Court had the power to acquit.
Law Points
- Validity of prior sanction under Section 20A(2) TADA
- Non-application of mind in sanction order
- Admissibility of confessional statement under TADA without valid sanction
- Search and seizure illegalities
- Power of Designated Court to acquit for lack of valid sanction
