LexASHRAFKHAN @ BABU MUNNEKHAN PATHAN versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 12 S.C.R. 1033 ASHRAFKHAN @ BABU MUNNEKHAN PATHAN A v. STATE OF GUJARAT (Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 2002 etc.) SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 [H.L. DATTU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] B Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: s.20-A(1) - Approval under - Absence - Effect of - c ·Prosecution under provisions of /PC, TADA, Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act - Of 60 accused - Conviction of 11 accused by Designated Court under provisions of TADA, Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act and acquittal of 41 accused - Appeals by the convicted accused as well as the 0 State - Plea of the accused that conviction was vitiated in absence of approval u/s. 20A(1) before registration of FIR - Plea of State interalia that there was approval by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (PW65) on 9.6.1994 as well as on · 11.8.1994 and approval given by Additional Chief Secretary, E Home Department of the State on 15.6.1994 - Held: From the evidence on record is it not proved that the Deputy Commissioner of Police (PW65) granted approval uls. 20- A(1) either on 9.6.1994 or on 11.8.1994 - The approval by the Addi. Chief Secretary, Home Department of State, though is proved, but the same is inconsequential ass. 20-A(1) does F not contemplate approval by the Addi. Chief Secretary, Home Department of the State - Thus the conviction stands vitiated in absence of approval u/s. 20-A(1) - However, the absence of approval u/s. 20-A(1) would not vitiate the conviction under the other penal provisions viz. Arms Act and Explosive G Substances Act - But since the conviction under TADA is vitiated for non-compliance of s. 20-A(1), the confessions (on the basis of which conviction under Arms Act and Explosive 1033 H 1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R. A Substances Act was based) cannot be relied upon to establish the guilt thereunder - Hence the conviction under the provisions of Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act is set aside - Benefit of the judgment is also given to the convicted accused who did not approach Supreme Court or B whose appeals were not entertained by this court on the ground that they had served out the sentence - Arms Act, 1959 - ss. 7 and 25 (1A) - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - ss. 4, 5 and 6. s. 20-A(1) and 20-A(2) - Approval under s. 20-A(1) - C Absence of- Whether inconsequential if sanction u/s. 20-A(2) granted - Held: The approval and sanction operate in different and distinct stages and for successful prosecution, both the requirements have to be complied with - The sanction uls. 20-A(2) does not render approval uls. 20-A(1) D inconsequential. ss. 20-A(1) and 20-A(2) - Non-compliance of s. 20-A(1) - Whether curable defect in parity with s. 20-A(2) - Held: It is not curable - An Act which is harsh, containing stringent E provisions prescribing different procedure cannot be construed liberally - For ensuring rule of law, its strict adherence has to be ensured. ss. 20-A(1) - Non compliance of - Whether curable defect u/s. 465 Cr.P. C - Held: s. 465 is attracted to trial under F TADA - But since the defect goes to the root of the matter, it is not covered bys. 465 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 465. ss. 20-A(1) and 18-Approval unders. 20-A(1)-Absence G of - Whether rendered irrelevant on Designated Court taking cognizance of the case in exercise of power uls. 18 and whether the issue permissible to be raised at later stage - Held: Exercise of power u/s. 18 by Designated Court does not prevent the accused to challenge the trial or conviction later. H ASHRAFKHAN@BABU MUNNEKHAN PATHAN v. 1035 STATE OF GUJARAT ss. 20-A(1) and 14 - Non-compliance of s. 20-A(1) - A Whether rendered irrelevant by the fact that Designated Court is empowered to take cognizance u/s. 14 irrespective of absence of compliance of s. 20-A(1) - Held: Power uls. 14 to the Designated Court does not make all other provisions of the Act inconsequential. B s. 20-A(1) - Interpretation of- Requirement of approval u/s. 20-A(1) cannot be said to be directory- Negative words used in the provision makes it clear that it is not directory - Provisions of TADA has to be strictly construed - C Interpretation of Statutes. Interpretation of Statutes - Rule of interpretation - Legislative intent - Plain ordinary grammatical meaning affords the best guide to ascertain the intention of the legislature - Other methods to understand the meaning is D resorted
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.