LexMANJIT SINGH @ MANGE versus CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- .,... ' [2011) 1 S.C.R. 997 MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1778 of 2008 etc.) JANUARY 25, 2011 [P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT, 1987: s., 12 - Designated Court -Jurisdiction of -Held.: By virtue of s. 12 of the Act, the Designated Court may also try any other offence with which the accused may be charged at A B c the same trial if the offence is connected with such other offence and further if it is found that the accused has 0 committed any other offence under any other law, the Designated Court may convict such person of such other offence and pass any sentence authorized by the Act or such other law for the punishment thereof-Interpretation of statutes. s. 15 -Confession made to police officer - Held: E Confessional statement made by a person u/s 15 shall be admissible in the trial of a co-accused for offence committed and tried in the same case together with the accused who makes the confession -Confession of an accused can be used against him as well as other co-accused even if they are F ' acquitted of offence under TADA Act . . s.20-A(1) -Cognizance of offence -Held: Expression "District SP" has been used in order to take the sanction of a senior officer of the district, when the prosecution wants to G record any commission of an offence under the Act -In the instant case, investigation was entrusted to CBI, therefore, the CBI SP could authorize the police to record the information about the commission of the offence under the Act -TADA 997 H 998 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R. A Rules, 1987 -r. 15 -Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946 s. 3 ss. 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) -Prosecution -Held: Section 3 gives due importance to the aspect of intent -A person can be charged with s. 3(1) only when the prosecution has 8 established that the offence was committed with the intent to awe the Government or to achieve one or other ends mentioned in s. 3(1) -In the instant case, the prosecution has not proved that the murder was committed with the intention to cause terror -Intention of the accused in the instant case was not to cause terror but to prevent information regarding C another crime from being divulged -Designated Court was, therefore, justified in dismissing the charges framed under the Act -Penal Code, 1860 -ss.302, 302134 and 3021120-8. D PENAL CODE, 1860: ss, 302, 302134 and 3021120-8 -Conviction based on circumstantial evidence -Out of the three prosecuted for assassination of an Additional Collector of Customs, two charged with offences punishable under Penal Code and ss. E 3(2) and 3(3) rlw s. 3(1) of TADA Act..., The third one was extradited from Singapore and in view of Extradition Treaty was charged only with ss. 302 and 120-8, /PC - Designated Court convicting all the three accused of the offences punishable u/ss. 302, 302134 and 3021120-8 /PC with F imprisonment for life and acquitting the two accused of the offences punishable under TADA Act - Held : The evidence on record presents an unimpeachable evidence against the accused, clearly indicating the modus operandi and the motive - The Designated Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused ulss 302, 302134 and 3021120-8 /PC G -It also rightly acquitted the accused of the charges under TADA Act - There is no illegality in the impugned judgment - Te"orist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 - ss.3(2) and 3(3) read withs. 3(1) "".""Evidence - Circumstantial evidence. H .... -..+ . MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 999 EVIDENCE: 1 Circumstantial evidence -Offences punishable ulss 3021 120-B /PC -Evidence against 'mastermind'l'kingpin' of I criminal conspiracy -Appreciation of - Penal Code, 1860 - SS. 3021120-8. The appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1778 and .1844 of 2008 were prosecuted for offences punishable u/s :302, s. 302/34 and s. 120 IPC, and ss. 3(2) and 3(3) read With A B 3(1) of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ands. 120 IPC, and the appellant in Criminal Appeal C No. 1826/2008 was prosecuted for offences punishable u/ss 1208, 302 and 302/34 IPC for assassination of the Additional Collector of Customs of Allahabad, namely, 'LO' on 24-3-1993 at about 07-07 .15 p.m" During the course of investigation, the Government of India with the D consent of the Government of Uttar Prades~. entrusted th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.