TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in TADA Special Case Nos. 1, 2 3 of 1999. Four accused persons were arrayed and prosecuted by the prosecution under Sections 3(2)(ii), 3(3) and 6(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987(hereinafter referred to as TADA Act and Section 4A of the Explosive Substances Act,1908. The TADA Court has acquitted two accused, namely, M. Jamal Alvi and Habib Ahmed. Against their acquittal, State of Rajasthan has filed appeals which are registered as Criminal Appeal Nos. 2464-66 of 2014. Other two accused, namely, Abre Rehmat Ansari @ Qari and Dr. Mohd. Jalees Ansari, have been convicted by the TADA Court and challenging that conviction, these persons have filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 464-466 of 2013. It is for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hore. The TADA Court has treated the said approval as valid because of the reason that approval is given by an authority which is higher than the District Superintendent of Police. The question, therefore, is as to whether it is only District Superintendent of Police whose approval will meet the requirements of law or it can be given by an Officer higher in rank. This question is no more res integra and is settled by a series of judgments of this Court. It is not necessary to give account of all those judgments as in the latest judgment rendered by this Court in Hussein Ghadially @ M.H.G.A.Shaikh Ors. vs. State of Gujarat (2014) 8 SCC 425, all the previous precedents are taken note of and on that basis, this Court has reiterated the posit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot provide any guidelines or direction to the authority under the statute to act in a particular manner. 21.2. Secondly, because 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been enacted. In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the Court also referred to and relied upon the three Judge Bench decision of this Court in Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja Anr. Vs State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 302 , in which the position in law was stated in the following manner: 11. The case against the appellants originally was registered on 19-3-1995 under the Arms Act. The DSP did not give any prior approval on his own to record any information about the commission of an offence under TADA. On the contrary, he made a report to the Additional Chief Secretary and asked for permission to proceed under TADA. Why? Was it because he was reluctant to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by the provision of Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... violation of sub-Section(1) of Section 20A as well as grant of prior approval by the District Superintendent of Police is not there and also when the State Government while giving sanction/consent has not applied its mind independently. We do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the State. From the reading of the judgment in Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja Anr. (Supra), it becomes clear that this Court had given the aforesaid two reasons while holding that the trial against the accused persons in the said case under TADA was vitiated. However, that does not mean that both the reasons have to be satisfied. Even both are independent of each other and even if one violation is found that would be sufficient to upset the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
