NAZIR AHMAD BHAIT versus STATE OF DELHI

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 02-11-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

. .. 
) 
J' 
NAZIR AHMAD BHAIT 
A 
v. 
STATE OF DELHI 
NOVEMBER 2, 200 I 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
B 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: 
Section 15( 1 )-Confession-Caution-Administering of-Held: The ac-
cused should be cautioned that he is not bound to make the confession and that, c 
if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him-There is no requirement 
· that such a cauti0n has to be administered to the accused on each day the 
Officer meets him-It is enough if the caution is administered before the 
accused niakes the confessional statement-Terrorist and Disruptive Activities 
(Prevention) Rules. 
D 
The appellant-accused was convicted under Section 4 of the Terror-
ist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and sentenced to rigor-
ous imprisonment for S years. Hence this appeal. 
According to the prosecution, on a raid being conducted at the 
E 
appellant's residence an audio cassette, some stickers and two floppies 
were recovered. The appellant made a confessional statement under Sec-
tion 151(1) of the TADA before the Deputy Commissioner of Police (PW-
4), which showed that the appellant was involved in disruptive activities 
against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. 
F 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that PW-4 did not 
administer a cantion to the appellant that he was not bound to make a 
confession and that, if he did so, it could be used against him; that mere 
appendage of a memorandum to this effect was insufficient. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD : 1.1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (PW -4) recorded in 
the minutes that he cautioned the appellant that the confession could be 
used against him during trial and that the appellant replied that he fully 
understood the consequence of making a confession. PW -4 asked the ap-
H 
2 
SIJPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
pellant the question whether he was aware that he was not bound to make 
a confession to which the appellant answered in the affirmative, then only 
he proceeded further and recorded the confession. [5-C-D] 
B 
1.2. There is no requirement that the confessor should be adminis-
tered with such caution on each day the officer meets him. It is enough that 
the caution is administered before the accused made the confessional stale· 
menL [5-G] 
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, [1994] 3 SCC 569, referred to. 
C 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 371 
of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.2.2001 of the Additional 
Sessions Judge Court, New Delhi in S.C. No. 2 of 2000. 
D 
Sushi! Kumar, R.P. Wadhwani for Varinder Kumar Sharma for the 
E 
F 
Appellant. 
Anoop Choudhary, D.S. Mehra and K.L. Janjani for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
THOMAS, J. The manager of a bank had undergone the entire term of 
imprisonment to which he was sentenced by a designated judge under the 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ('TADA' for short). 
He still persists ;n challenging the conviction and sentence presumably because 
the consequence of it would entail dislodgment from his office in the bank. He 
was found having involved in disruptive activities ranging to defying the 
sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. On the strength of the aforesaid 
finding the designated judge convicted him under Section 4 of TADA and 
sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years besides a fine of Rs.5,000. 
· He was also convicted on other counts of offences such as Sections 120B, 419, 
G 
468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, for which he was sentenced to impris-
onment for lesser terms. As he completed his sentence by undergoing the term 
of imprisonment imposed under Section 4 of TADA he is deemed to have 
undergone the sentences imposed under the other counts as well because of the 
direction that the sentence of imprisonment under all the different counts shall 
H 
run concurrently. 
- "'. 
-----
> 
. NAZIR AHMAD BHATT v. STATE [THOMAS, J.] 
3 
This appeal under Section 19 of TADA is, therefore, as of his statutory 
A 
right and his senior counsel (Shri Sushi! Kumar) has tenaciously pursued it 
despite the advantage that he need not now go back to jail. But as the fall out 
. of the convic~on would visit him with dire consequences for his service tenure, 
learned senior counsel did not spare any effort to get him exonerated. We heard 
the arguments with all seriousness with whic

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