LexHARPAL SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B HARPAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB DECEMBER 4, 2007 [G.P. MATHUR AND G.S. SINGHVI,JJ.] Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-ss. l 2, 18 and 20A(2)-Designated TADA Court-Jurisdiction of-To take C cognizance of offences under other Acts than the TADA-Held: Designated TADA Court gets jurisdiction to try any other offence only if it has the jurisdiction and is trying an offence under TADA-On facts, since there was no sanction of the Inspector General of Police or of the Commissioner of Police as required under s.20-A(2) a/TADA, the D Designated TADA Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to try accused- appellant for offence under TADA-Consequently, it could not have tried him/or offences under any other Act as well viz. the Explosive Substances Act or the Explosives Act-Conviction of appellant by Designated TADA Court under s.5 of the Explosive Substances Act, . E therefore, illegal and liable to be set aside-Explosive Substances Act, 1908-s.5-Explosives Act, 1884. Words and Phrases-"Jurisdiction "-Meaning of-Discussed. The prosecution case was that on seeing a police party, F appellant tried to run away but he was apprehended after a chase and a bag containing one kilogram explosive powder was recovered from the appellant. Charge-sheet was submitted in the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) for prosecution of the appellant. The Designated G TADA Court acquitted appellant of the offences under TADA and the Explosives Act, 1884 and convicted him only under s.5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the Designated H 830 HARPALSINGHv. STATE 831 TADA Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the A offence under TADA and consequently had no jurisdiction to try and convict the appellant under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. In view of sub-section (1) of s.20-A of the Terrorist B and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, no FIR about the commission of an offence under TADA can be recorded by the police without prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police. Similarly, on account of sub-section (2) of s.20-A no court can take cognizance of any offence under TADA without the previous sanction c of the Inspector General of Police, or as the case may be, the Commissioner of Police. Hence, the Designated Court is debarred from taking cognizance of any offence under TADA without the previous sanction of the Inspector General of Police or, as the case may be, the Commissioner of Police. [Para 5] [835-C-D] D 1.2. The Designated Court, while trying an offence under TADA, is empowered to try any other offence with which the accused may under the Cr.P.C be charged at the same trial ifthe offence is connected with such other offence in view of s.12 ofT ADA and may convict such person of such other offence and may pass any sentence E authorized by TADA or by such other law for the punishment thereof. But for application of s.12, it is absolutely essential that the Designated Court should be trying an offence under TADA. If the Designated Court is not trying an offence under TADA it will have no jurisdiction to try any other offence. S.18 also points out the same F situation which says that where, after taking cognizance of any offence, a Designated Court is of opinion that the offence is not triable by it, shall, notwithstanding that it had no jurisdiction to try such offence, transfer the case for the trial of such offence to any court having jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus G the Designated Court gets the jurisdiction to try any other offence only if it has the jurisdiction and is trying an offence under TADA. [Para 8] (836-C-F) Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja H 832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 12 S.C.R. A and Ors., AIR (1990) SC 1962, relied on. 2. Jurisdiction means the authority or power to entertain, hear and decide a case and to do justice in the case and determine the controversy. In absence of jurisdiction the court has no power to hear and decide the matter and the order passed by it would be a nullity. B [Para 9) [837-H) Black's Law Dictionary and Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 2nd edition, Reprint 2000, referred to. 3. In the present case, in the first charge-sheet there was no C mention ofT
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.