PRAKASH KUMAR @ PRAKASH BHUTTO versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 408 · Decided: 12-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PRAKASH KUMAR @ PRAKASH BHUTTO 
v. 
.,, 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
JANUARY 12, 2005 
B [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., B.N. AGRAWAL, H.K. SEMA, G.P. MATHUR AND 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
~ 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: 
-f 
c 
Sections 15 & 12-Tria/ of offer.ces under TADA together with offence 
under any other law-Admissibility of confession recorded under S.15 of TADA, 
in case accused acquitted of offences under TADA in the same trial-Held, it 
would continue to remain admissible for offences under any other law which 
were tried alongwith TADA offences. 
D 
Section 12-Trial under TADA-Non-availability of ordinary procedural 
Jaw-Held, not discriminatory-Persons tried under TADA form a distinct 
class-Procedure prescribed for trying them for the aggravated and incensed 
~ 
nature of offences are under different classification-Constitution of India, 
~ 
1950--Articles 14 and 21. 
E 
Section 18-Invocation of for transferring cases to regular courts-
Held, the provision is invokable only at the stage where the Designated Court 
takes cognizance, i.e. after the investigation is complete and charge-sheet is 
filed. 
F 
Misuse of the Act-Caution against, to Police Officials as well as 
Presiding Officers of Designated Courts-To enforce the Act effectively and 
.I, 
in consonance with the legislative intendment i.e. after application of mind 
Interpretation of Statutes-Jurisdiction of Court to interpret a statute 
can be invoked only in case of ambiguity. 
G 
Words and Phrases- "but subject to the provisions of this Section" and 
'for an offence under this Act" -Meaning of in context to S.15 of the Terrorist 
and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. 
Doubting the correctness of the decision in State v. Nalini, [1999] 5 
H 
408 
\ 
)< 
" 
1 
i 
;.. 
P. KUMAR@ PRAKASH BHUTTO"' STATE OF GU.IA RAT 
409 
SCC 253 as to admissibility of a confession in terms of Section 15 of the 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA), a two-
Judge Bench of this Court referred the matter to a three-Judge Bench 
which in turn made this reference to a five-Judge Bench. 
The primary question for determination is, as to whether the 
confessional statement duly recorded under Section 15 of the TADA would 
continue to remain admissible as for the offences under any other law 
which were tried along with TADA offences under Section 12 of the Act, 
notwithstanding the fact that the accused was acquitted of offences under 
TADA in the said trial. 
Answering the reference, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 
.1987 (TADA), though a miniature legislation, is very harsh and drastic 
containing stringent provisions to combat the menace of terrorism. 
[415-H) 
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994] 3 SCC 569 and Hitendra Vishnu 
Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994] 4 SCC 602, referred to. 
Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik, (2002) 1 SCC 1, 
cited. 
1.2. The more stringent the law, the less is the discretion of the Court. 
Stringent laws are made for the purpose to achieve its objectives. This 
being the intendment of the legislature the duty of the court is to seP that 
the intention of the legislature is not frustrated. (422-G-H) 
Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P., (1997) 7 SCC 431, overruled. 
Rambhai Nathabhai Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, (1997] 7 SCC 744 and 
· Gurprit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2002] 10 SCC 201, held, per incuriam. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Swedish Match AB and Anr. v. Securities & Exchange Board, India and G 
Anr., (2004) 7 Scale 158, relied on. 
2.l. The jurisdiction of the Court to interpret a statute can be 
invoked only in case of ambiguity. The Court cannot enlarge the scope of 
legislation or intention when the language of the statute is plain and 
unambiguous. (426-C] 
H 
410 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] I S.C.R. 
A 
Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal, (20031 2 SCC 577; Mohan Kumar 
/ 
B 
Singhania v. Union of India, 119921 Supp. I SCC 594 and Bairam Kumawat 
v. Union of India, (20031 7 SCC 628, relied on. 
Supdt. And Remembrancer of Legal Affairs to Govt. of W.B. v. Abani 
Maity, (1979) 4 SCC 85, cited. 
2.2. Section 15 of the TADA Act and Rules framed thereunder is a 
self-contained code in itself, providing procedural safeguards and the 
words, "but subject to the provisions of this Section" employed therein 
would mean the procedural safeguards prescribed under the Section. 
Section 15 has overriding effect over the Evidence Act

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