Summary
Accused found with prohibited arms in a TADA-notified area challenged recording of information before the prescribed approval. The Court held prior approval mandatory and fatal to the TADA prosecution on these facts, while preserving prosecution under other law. It distinguished urgent investigation of an independent serious principal offence from a case where the same arms recovery formed the entire basis of both offences.
Issues
- Whether subsequent approval cured recording TADA information without prior approval.
- How the safeguard operated where independent serious offences also required immediate investigation.
Provisions considered
- Section 20-A, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987Prior approval to record TADA information and previous sanction for cognizance were separate mandatory safeguards. (¶¶ 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16)
Held
- The negative, overriding terms of section 20-A(1) prohibit recording TADA offence information under section 154 CrPC without prior District Superintendent approval. Later cognizance sanction under subsection (2) does not substitute for the earlier safeguard, and the defect is not curable under section 465 CrPC. (¶¶ 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13)
- The prohibition does not prevent a communication or rukka addressed to the competent Superintendent seeking approval; otherwise the statutory approval process could not function. (¶¶ 12, 14)
- Urgent investigation of an independent serious principal offence, such as murder, need not await TADA approval; approval must be obtained before proceeding under TADA. Whether that situation exists depends on the facts. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- Here recovery of the same prohibited arms in a notified area was the entire evidentiary basis under both enactments, without another independent serious offence. Subsequent approval did not cure the absence of prior approval, requiring discharge only from the TADA offences. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 16, 18)
Result
The appeal was allowed and the Designated Court order set aside. The appellants were discharged from TADA offences, while prosecution under the Arms Act or other applicable law remained permissible. Pending applications were disposed of.