Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2014 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 1140 - SUPREME COURTBomb Blast in Surat - Blast due to demolition of Barbri Maszid - Offence recorded under TADA - Compliance to Section 20A of TADA - Held that:- statute vests the grant approval in an authority specifically designated for the purpose. That being so, no one except the authority so designated, can exercise that power. Permitting exercise of the power by any other authority whether superior or inferior to the authority designated by the Statute will have the effect of re-writing the provision and defeating the legislature purpose behind the same - a course that is legally impermissible. Exercise of the power vested in the District Superintendent of Police under Section 20-A (1) would involve application of mind by the officer concerned to the material placed before him on the basis whereof, alone a decision whether or not information regarding commission of an offence under TADA should be recorded can be taken. Exercise of the power granting or refusing approval under Section 20-A (1) in its very nature casts a duty upon the officer concerned to evaluate the information and determine having regard to all attendant circumstances whether or not a case for invoking the provisions of TADA is made out. Exercise of that power by anyone other than the designated authority viz. the District Superintendent of Police would amount to such other authority clutching at the jurisdiction of the designated officer, no matter such officer or authority purporting to exercise that power is superior in rank and position to the officer authorised by law to take the decision. If the Statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner alone. All other modes or methods of doing that thing must be deemed to have been prohibited. Section 20-A (1) is mandatory is also no longer res integra having been settled by this Court in Rangku Dutta @ Ranjan Kumar Dutta v. State of Assam [2011 (5) TMI 902 - Supreme Court Of India]. This Court in that case held that since the provision was couched in negative terms, the same is mandatory in nature no matter the statute does not provide any penalty for disobedience. Requirement of a mandatory statutory provision having been violated, the trial and conviction of the petitioners for offences under the TADA must be held to have been vitiated on that account. The argument that the first information report regarding the two incidents had been registered before the introduction of Section 20-A (1) in the statute book making approval of the competent authority unnecessary has not impressed us. It is true that the two incidents had taken place and cases registered regarding the same under TADA before Section 20-A (1) came on the statute book, but the fact remains that the provisions of TADA were removed from the reports pursuant to the recommendations of the Review Committee. By the time fresh evidence came to light requiring re-introduction of the provisions of the Act approval for recording information regarding commission of offences under TADA, had become necessary. The fact that such approval was considered necessary even by the investigating agency and was prayed for, only shows that the authorities were aware of the requirement of law and had consciously attempted to comply with the said requirement no matter by applying for such approval to an authority not competent to grant the same. - Decided in favour of Appellant.
|