Summary
The Court dismissed the State’s appeals against acquittals in three connected TADA cases. The purported prosecution sanctions showed no proper application of mind to the offences and material concerning the accused. Although connected offences under other enactments could be tried on legally admissible evidence, the TADA confessions were unavailable here and the search-and-seizure evidence had fatal deficiencies.
Issues
- Whether the purported sanctions satisfied Section 20A(2).
- Whether the acquittals for connected offences under other enactments nevertheless required interference.
Provisions considered
- Section 20A(1) and (2), Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987Prior approval to register a case was distinct from sanction to prosecute. The appeals proceeded on the basis of valid prior approval, but the prosecution sanctions failed for non-application of mind. (¶¶ 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
- Section 12, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987The Designated Court could try connected offences and convict on legally admissible evidence even if a TADA offence was not made out; a categorical denial of that power was erroneous. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
- Section 15, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987The special confessions could not establish the connected offences where cognizance under TADA itself lacked valid sanction. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
Held
- The first sanction purported to permit application of Sections 3, 4 and 5 rather than properly authorize prosecution for identified offences. Assertions of discussions between officers were not supported by contemporaneous records showing the necessary consideration. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The sanction concerning the third accused failed to explain how the material about two walkie-talkies attracted the distinct TADA offences. The sanctioning authority was not examined to illuminate that issue; mere transmission of investigation papers did not establish application of mind. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Validity of prior approval and sanction went to the root of the TADA prosecution and the Designated Court’s jurisdiction. The court could examine those questions at the outset despite not having framed a separate issue. (¶ 21)
- The power to convict for connected offences under other laws was preserved, subject to legally admissible evidence. Here, the TADA confessions were unavailable and the evidence of search and seizure was fatally deficient, so the acquittals did not call for interference. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
Result
State appeals dismissed; acquittals of all respondents left undisturbed.