LexMOHD. JALEES ANSARI AND OTHERS versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 24 7 MOHD. JALEES ANSARI AND OTHERS v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Criminal Appeal No. 546 of2004) MAY 11,2016 [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: ss. 3, 4, 5 and 6 - Prosecution under and also under ss. 302, 307, 324, 326 and 436 of !PC; ss. 3 and 4 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908; s.9B of Explosives Act, 1884; ss. !50 and 151 of Railways Act,1989 and s.4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984; all rlw s. 120-B !PC - Of 16 accused- For serial bomb-blast in different trains - Case registered by CBI - Confessional statements of the accused recorded - Confessions of A-1, A-5, A-8, A-9, A-JO, A-11 and A-13 were recorded in crimes other than the present cases - A-6 since escaped from custody, his case was separated - Designated Court convir!f..ed A-1 to A-5 and A-7 to A- 16 - A-12 since was found to be a juvenile, his case was also separated - Appeal by A-1 to A-5, A-7 to A-11 and A-13 to A-16 - Held: The confessional statements of A"l, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-7, A-14, A-15 and A-16 are admissible in lmv - Their statements are further corroborated by the confessions of other co-accused - Therefore, the prosecution case is established against them and hence their conviction affirmed - Confessions of A-5, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11 and A-13 cannot be relied upon as substantive pieces of evidence - As regards A-5 and A-11, even without referring to their confessions, their role in the conspiracy is fully established and hence their conviction is affirmed - The prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of A-8, A-9, A-10 and A-13 in the present cases and hence their conviction is set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120-B, 302, 307, 324, 326 and 436 - Explosive Substance Act, 1908 - ss. 3 and 4 - Explosives Act, 1884 - s.9B - Railways Act,1989 - ss. 15 0 and 151 - Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - s.4. 247 A B c D E F G H 248 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R. s.15 r/w Rule 15 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules, 1987 - Confessions under - Reliability on - Held: Confessions recorded u/s 15(1) in accordance ll'ith statutory requiremenls and conditions u/1; 15 is admissible against the 111ake1: co-accused, abellor or a conspira/01; subject to conditions stipulated in Proviso to s. 15(1) - Such statement can form the basis of conviction as against the maker of such confession - But extent of reliability of such confession as against the co-accused should be treated with caution. s.20A(J) - Cognizance of offence under TADA - Need for prior approval of District Superintendence of Police before recording of offence under TADA by Police - Held: The provision for prior approval is absolute imperative, in absence ofwhichji1rther proceedings taken under TADA would be completely invalid and of no consequence. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 According to sub-Section (1) of s. 20-A of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, there must be prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police, before any information about the commission of offence under TADA Act could be recorded by the police. This provision is mandatory and going by the negative language employed therein - an absolute imperative, in the absence of which further proceedings taken under TADA Act would be completely invalid and of no co_nsequence. [Para 42)(283-C-D] 1.2 The Designated Court had found that there was no proper and valid invocation of the provisions of TADA Act while dealing with Sessions Case Nos. 438 of 1994, 584 of 1994, 13 of 1995 and 14 of 1995 (the cases other than the present cases). Sessions Case No. 438 of 1994 arose from I'IR No.336 of 1993 in which crime, confessions of accused Nos. A9, AlO, All and A13 were recorded. In the face of the order that the provisions of TADA Act were not validly and pro1>erly invoked, such confessions must suffer the inevitable consequence. If there is no valid prior approval under TADA Act, subsequent steps or stages initiated under TADA Act are rendered invalid. Consequently, the confessions of Accused Nos.A9, AlO, All and MOHD. JALEES ANSARI AND OTHERS v. CENTRAL BUREAl;J OF INVESTIGATION Al3 are without any legal sanction and cannot be relied upon. [Para 46)(287-C-F] 1.3 So far as the present cases are coucerned, registrati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.