LexMOHAMED IQBAL MADAR SHEIKH AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MOHAMED IQBAL MADAR SHEIKH AND ORS.
A
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
JANUARY 8. 1996
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ., B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.]
B
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987:
Ss.1(4)--0ffe11ces under .u.3(1) and 3(2}(i} committed in January
1993--Proceedbzgs against accused pending before Designated Court-AG!
lapsed after stipulated period-Effect of-Plea that after lapse of act, no
C
prosecution before Designated Court re1nai11ed pending-Held, such plea
misconceived-Specific provision o.f sub-section ( 4) of s. 1 shall keep the pending
investigations and legal proceedings alive-The Act to be treated as not expired
as regards pending investigations and legal proceedings.
Ss.20(4}(b), 20(4)(bb) and 20(8)-Failure on part of prosecution to
D
co1nplete investigation within prescribed tim.e--Right o_f Q(,'Cttsed to be released
on bail--Held after expiry of period specified in the sections for completion ~{
investigation, accused acquires·a right to be released on bail in terms of proviso
(a) to s. 167(2) Cr. P.C. and this right cannot be d~feated by any Court, if
accused is prepared and does.furnish the requisite bail bonds--However, as no
application.for bail on this ground was made, accused could not be released on
bail.
Code ~f Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.167(2) proviso (a)-(Jrant of bail
.for de.fault of prosecution to complete investigation within stipulated
period--Held right cannot be exercised after chargesheet has been submitted
and cognizance taken, as in that event remand of accused is not under s.167(2)
but under other provision of Code.
In the wake of communal riots flared up in the city of Bombay in
January 1993 after the incident relating to the Bahri Masjid at Ayodhya on
6.12.1992, the appellants alongwith some others were put on trial for
offence, inter alia, under s.302 read with s.149 I.P.C. and sub-sections (1)
and (2)(i) of s.3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,
1987. The prosecution case was that at about 12.30 A.M., in the night
between 7th and 8th January, 1993, the appellant alongwith some others
assembled in front of the house in the neighbourhood of the complainant,
bolted the said house from outside, poured kerosene oil and set it on fire,
183
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996] 1 S.C.R.
as a result of which many children, women and men were burnt to death.
The Designated Court released some of the accused on bail, but rejected! the
prayer of the appellants holding that, prima facie, there was material on
record to show that the case under the provisions of s.3(1) and s.3(2)(ii) of
TADA was made out against them. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the
appeals.
It was contended for the appellants that TADA being a temporary
enactment and having lapsed, this Court could release the appell~mts
ignoring the provisions of sub-section (8) of s.20 of the Act, as it wouMI be
deemed that after the lapse of the Act, no prosecution under section 3(1)
and 3(2)(i) was pending before the Designated Court; and that e'Ven
otherwise, the appellants were entitled to bail in view of proviso (a) to> s.
167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground of default
in submission of the charge-sheet within the statutory period.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court
HELD : 1. Like Section 6 of tht~ General Clauses Act, in sub-sectiion
(4) of s.1 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1!187
the framers of the Act had enacted a saving provision and desired that ewn
after expiry of such temporary Act, the proceedings initiated under l:he
Act, should not come to an end without the final conclusion and
determination; they are to be continued in spite of the expiry of the Act.
The specific provision of the deeming clause in sub-section (4) of Section 1,
saying 'as if this Act had not expired' shall keep the pending investigations
and legal proceedings alive. In spite of the act having expired, it has to be
treated that it has not expired so far such pending investigations and legal
proceedings are concerned. [189-D-E]
F
State of Orissa v. Bhupendra Kumar Bose, AIR (1962) SC 945 = [1962]
Supp. 2 SCR 380, followed.
2.1 Sub-section (4) of section 20 TADA makes the provision of s.167
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applicable in respect of offences
under TADA except that the periods prescribed forthe authorised detention
G in respect of such offExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.