MOHD. IQBAL M. SHAIKH AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 734 · Decided: 15-04-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MOHD. IQBAL M. SHAIKH AND ORS. 
v. 
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
APRIL 15, 1998 
[G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Criminal Law : 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: Section 
c 2(h). 
'Terrorist act '-Meaning of-As a sequel to the demolition of Bahri 
Masjid, the house of Hindus was set afire by members of the rival community 
with the result that several persons were burnt alive-Held: 'Terrorist act' 
produces a prolonged psychological effect on society, disturbs even the 
D tempo and tranquillity of society and creates a sense of fear and insecurity 
in the minds of a section of the society or society at large-Therefore, having 
regard to the sensitive and tense atmosphere then prevailing in the society 
and the real impact of the gruesome and atrocious activities on the society, 
the aforesaid act amounted to a 'terrorist act'. 
E 
F 
Section 20-A (1) (introduced w.e.f 22-5-1993)-District Superintendent 
of Police (DSP) competent authority to accord approval for application of 
TADA-Occurrence took place on 7-1-1993-Commissioner of Police 
accorded approval for application of TADA-Validity of-Held: Occurrence 
took place prior to coming into force of S. 20-A (1)-Hence, question of 
obtaining prior approval of DSP for application of TADA does not arise-
Even otherwise, the Commissioner of Police, on the basis of the report of 
Senior Police Inspector of the concerned police station, had accorded 
approval to apply TADA-Jn the circumstances of the case, there is no 
infirmity with the investigation being proceeded under TADA, charges being 
G framed therein and trial being held by the Designated Court. 
Section 20-A (1)-Prosecution-Sanction for-Cognizance by court-
Condition precedent-Application of mind before according sanction-Valid 
sanction-Held: If the sanction order shows that sanction was granted only 
after consideration of relevant material then validity of such sanction order 
H cannot be questioned on ground of non-application ·of mind-But if the 
734 
-
+. 
---.{, 
-< 
,.( 
"' 
.+ 
MOHD. IQBAL M. SHAIKH v. STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
735 
sanction order does not clearly indicate application of mind, then prosecution A 
is entitled to adduce evidence allude of the sanctioning authority, based on 
which court can be satisfied about application of mind-The fact that sanction 
was accorded on the very same day of receipt of relevant papers does not 
indicate non-application of mind or invalidate sanction-Administrative Law. 
Appreciation of evidence-Held: Law does not make a distinction in B 
the matter of appreciation of evidence in a case under TADA or under normal 
criminal law. 
Criminal Trial : 
Appreciation of evidence-Witness-Questioning of-By police-Delay c 
in-Held: Delay in questioning the witness by itself does not render his 
evidence unreliable-But while testing the credibility and assessing the 
intrinsic worth of such evidence court should scrutinise it strictly-Non-
examination of a witness at the earliest point of time, though he was available 
right from the time of occurrence, indicates callousness on the conduct of the D 
investigating agency. 
Appreciation of evidence-Separation of-Chaff from grain-Duty of 
court-Held: If the witness is wholly unreliable the question of corroboration 
does not arise-Hence, the question of separating the chaff from grain also 
does not arise-Unless the prosecution evidence conclusively establishes the E 
offence conviction cannot be recorded on mere conjectures and hypothesis. 
Evidence Act, 1872: Section 9. 
Test Identification Parade-Necessity of-Accused was known to the 
witness by face only and not by name-Accused was also shown to the F 
witness during investigation-Held: Under such circumstances, evidence of 
TI Parade can corroborate the evidence of identification in court-As the 
accused was shown to the witness the so-called identification parade loses 
its value and identification in court also becomes inconsequential. 
The appellant-accused were convicted by the Designated Court for the G 
offences under Sections 120-B and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 read with 
Section 3(2)(i) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 
1987, Section 302 IPC and read with Section 149 IPC, Section 436 IPC read 
with Section 149 IPC, Sections 147 IPC and 148 IPC and sentenced to 
undergo imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal. 
H 
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
According to the prosecution on 7-1-1993, a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.