MOHD. YUNUS versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 494 · Decided: 15-10-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MOHD. YUNUS 
v. 
ST ATE OF GUJARAT 
OCTOBER 15, 1997 
[G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 : Section 
20A, 3 and 5. 
TADA Accused-Charge under Sections 3 and 5-Condition precedent 
for invoking provisions-Prior approval of statutory authority for initiating 
criminal proceedings-Failure to comply with-Effect of 
Appellant accused charged under Sections 3 and 5-Prior approval of 
D District Superintendent of Police as required under section 20 A(J) not 
obtained-Application filed by appellant for dropping the charges for non 
compliance with mandatory provisions of section WA-Rejection by 
Designated Court-Appeal before Supreme Court-Held, prior approval of 
statutory authority is mandatory-Such a permission should be in writing-
Oral permission cannot be accepted-On facts held even oral permission was 
E not granted. 
Anirudhssinji Karansinhji Jadeja and Anr. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 
(1995) SSC 2390, referred to. 
p 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 741 
of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.4.97 of the Designated Court, 
Ahmedabad in T.C.C. No. 3of1996. 
G 
W.A. Ansari, K.M.M. Khan, Shuyab Arshi and N.A. Siddiqui for the 
H 
Appellant. 
Dr. Ghatate and Ms. H. Wahi for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
494 
'·
MOHD. YUNUS v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
495 
In this appeal, the order dated 21st April, 1997 passed by the learned A 
Addi. Designated Judge, Ahmedabad rejecting the application made by the 
appellant for dropping the charge under Sections 3 and 5 of Terrorists and 
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short TADA) in Terrorist 
Criminal Case No. 3196 arising out of !.C.R. No. 94/93 of the police station 
Rakhiyal, District Ahmedabad on account of non compliance of mandatory B 
provisions of Section 20A of TADA, is under challenge. 
The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of 
three judges' Bench of this Court in Anirudhssinji Karansinhji Judeja and 
Anr., v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1995) 5 SC 2390. It has been held in the said 
decision that cognizance of the offence under TADA can be taken on C 
compliance of the provisions of sub-section (I) of Section 20A and sub-
section (2) of Section 20A of TADA. Sub-section (!) of Section 20 A of 
TADA provides : 
"20-A (1) 'Notwithstanding anything contained in the code, no 
information about the commission of an offence under this Act shall D 
be recorded by the police without the prior approval of the District 
Superintended of Police." . 
The learned counsel has contended that in this case, the statutory 
authority as referred to in sub-section (I) of Section 20A of TADA has not 
given any prior approval for initiating the criminal proceedings under TADA. E . 
Therefore charges under TADA cannot be invoked. 
It is, however, contended by the prosecution that on the very date 
when investigation had been made in this case, the Commissioner _of Police, 
Ahmedabad was present and he had given oral permission under Section 
20A(l) of TADA. We may indicate here that considering the serious F 
consequences in a criminal case initiated under the provisions of TADA, oral 
permission cannot be accepted. In our view, Section 20A ( 1) must be construed 
by indicating that prior approval of the statutory authority referred to in the 
said sub-section must be in writing so that there is transparency in the action 
of the statutory authority and there is no occasion for any subterfuge G 
subsequently by introducing oral permission. 
That apart, in the facts of the case we have no hesitation to hold that 
even oral permission had not been granted. Dr. Ghatate, the learned counsel 
for the respondent has drawn our attention to two documents, namely. the 
letter addressed by the ACP Crime Branch Ahmedabad to the Deputy H 
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A Commissioner, Crime bench, Ahmedabad city, for invoking Sections 3 and 5 
of TADA in respect of Rakhial Police Station CR 1-94/93. This letter is dated 
11th August, 1994. In the said letter, a request was made that in the facts 
indicated in the letter, it was necessary to invoke sections 3 and 5 of TADA 
( 
and a request was made to grant approval accordingly. The other document 
B placed before us by Dr. Ghatate is the permission given by D.C.P. on the basis 
of request made by the A.C.P. Crime Branch Ahmedabad. It appears that on 
11.8.94 such permissi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.