AYYUB ETC. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 106 · Decided: 28-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
AYYUB ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
FEBRUARY 28, 2002 
[R.P: SETHI AND K.G.· BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code 1860/Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 
1987 : Sections 302 i-!w 34; 307 r/w 34/Sections 3(1)(2)(i) and 15. 
Charges under TADA Act and IPC-:-Confession made to Police Officer 
when made voluntary is admissible in evidence under Section 15 of TADA 
Act-Fundamental rule of evidence is that a confession made to a Police 
Officer by accused shall not be proved against him_-Strict procedure for 
recording of confession need to be followed-Confession recorded in defiance 
D thereof becomes inadmissible in evidence. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: 
Section 164 : Voluntary confession-Requirement of-Discussed 
E 
Section 321: Application/or withdrawal from prosecutionfrom charges 
F 
framed under TADA Act-Designated Court not justified in rejecting the 
application as the State Government requested for withdrawal from prosecution 
only after taking into consideration the evidence and available material on 
record 
According to the prosecution, appellan~/accused hurled bombs at the 
security personnel, the bombs exploded and injured four constables. The. 
security personnel opened fire but accused fled away. Informant, Platoon 
Commander, took the injured to the hospital and lodged F.1.R. in the Police 
Station. One of the injured constables succumbed to his injuries in the hospital.· 
G Subsequently, on the basis of secret information, Police raided a house and 
nabbed one of the accused, the other a·ccused surrendered in the Court. As 
the accused expressed their willingness to. make confession statements, 
Superintendent of Police recorded their confession statement. After completion 
of investigation in the matter, charge-sheets were filed against appellants and 
five others before the Designated Judge, TADA. 
H 
106 
AYYUBv.STATE 
107 
Before the Designated Judge, Prosecuting Officer sought permission to A 
withdraw charges against the five accomplices and the Court granted 
permission. Subsequently as per order of the State Government, prosecution 
had filed another application for withdrawal of prosecution in respect of 
appellants for the charges framed against them under the TADA Act which 
was rejected by the Trial Court. Trial Court found them guilty for the offences 
punishable under Sections 3(1)(2)(i) of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities B 
(Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, 
and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damages to Property Act, 1984. Aggrieved, 
appellants moved this Court. Hence these appeals. 
It was contended for the appellants that the State Government after C 
considering the various aspects of the matter had requested for withdrawal 
from prosecution in respect of the offence charged ·under the TADA Act and 
the Designated Judge could have allowed the same. 
On behalf of Respondent-State, it was contended that as the appellants 
had not challenged the order passed by the Designated Judge declining the D 
withdrawal from prosecution they should not be allowed to be heard against 
the said Order before this Court. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. There are stringent provisions in the Terrorists a.nd E 
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA Act) and in the Government 
Order it is stated that the Government after proper discussion on the facts 
of the case and the evidence/reports/letters available on the record decided 
to waive the TADA Sections in these cases. When the Government Order itself 
states that all records were perused and considered, Designated Judge was 
not justified in rejecting the application for withdrawal from prosecution. It F 
cannot be said that the Senior Prosecuting Officer had filed the application 
without consideration of the relevant facts. It cannot also be said that 
application was filed with any malafide intention to save some of the culprits 
from the clutches of I.aw. The request was made only to withdraw from 
prosecution as against the offences punishable under the TADA Act. Charges · G 
in respect of other offences punishable under Indian Penal Code remained 
and the accused had to face trial for that. Government must have thought 
that the stringent and harsh provisions of TADA Act were not necessary to 
deal with such situations. Therefore, the applicatioA for withdrawal of cases 
from prosecution against offence punishable under the TADA Act is allowed 
H

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.