RAMBHAI NATH BHAI GANDHVI AND ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 356 · Decided: 06-08-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAMBHAI NATH BHAI GANDHV~ AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
AUGUST 6, 1997 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Criminal law : 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: 
C 
Section 197--Cognizance of offence-Duty of court-No valid sanction 
order for prosecution-Held, Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance. 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities [Prevention} Act, 1987-Section 
20A-Sanction order for prosecution-Non-application of mind-Hence, not 
D valid under section 20A of TADA. 
E 
Anns Act, 1959 Section 2~Trial under TADA vitiated for want of 
valid sanction - No valid trial could be held by the Designated Court into any 
other offence including under the Anns Act as it has no such independent 
power. 
The accused in this case were actively engaged In smuggling of goods 
particularly arms and ammunition. The District Superintendent of Police 
got information about their smuggling activities and conducted a search. 
In that operation the D.S.P. arrested all the accused and seized a gun, 
pistols, cartridges, sub-machine guns and some more fire arms and am· 
F munitions from them. All accused were prosecuted under TADA and Arms 
Act. 
On the basis of sanction order and other witnesses and materials 
adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the Designated Court convicted the 
G first accused and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 7 years 
under Section S of TADA. The other three accused were convicted and were 
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for S years under Section S of TADA. 
In this Appeal, appellants contended inter alia that the evidence of 
the pi:osecution was unrealistic and unreliable and that there was no valid 
H sanction for prosecution. 
356 
RAMBHAI NATH BHAI GANDHVI v. STATE 
357 
Allowing the appeal, this court 
A 
HELD: 1.1. Valid sanction is sine qua non for enabling the prosecut-
ing agency to approach the court in order to enable the court to take 
cognizance of the offence under TADA as disclosed in the report. The 
corollary is that, if there was ·no valid sanction the Designated Court gets B 
no j'urisdiction to try a case against any person mentioned in the report 
as the court is forbidden from taking cognizance of the offence without 
such sanction. If the Designated Court has taken cognizance of the offence 
without a valid sanction, such action is without jurisdiction arid any 
proceedings adopted thereunder will also be without jurisdiction. 
[361-B-D] C 
1.2. Taking cognizance is the act which the Designated Court has to 
perform and granting sanction is an act which the sanctioning authority 
has to perform. Latter is the permission to prosecute a particular person 
for the offence or offences under TADA. Sanction is not granted, to the 
Designated Court to take cognizance of the offence but it is granted to the D 
prosecuting agency to approach the court concerned for enabling it to take 
cognizance of the offence and to proceed to trial against the persons 
arraigned in the report. [360-H; 361-A-B] 
2.1. The sanction order makes reference only to two doCUIJlents which E 
alone were available for the DGP to consider whether sanction should be 
accorded or not. One is the FIR in this case and the other is the letter sent 
by Superintendent of Police seeking permission or sanction. No doubt in 
that letter to the DGP the Superintendent of Police had narrated the facts 
of the case. But he did not send any other documents relating to the 
investigation or copy thereof along with the application. Nor did the DGP 
call for any documents for his peJ:'.nsal. All that the DGP had before him 
to consider the question of granting sanction to prosecute were the copy 
of the FIR and the application containing some skeleton facts. There is 
nothing on record to show that the DGP called the superintendent of police 
F 
at least for a discussion with him. In such a situation, it cannot be said G 
that the sanctioning authority granted sanction after applying its mind 
effectively and after reaching a satisfaction that it is necessary in public 
interest that prosecution should be launched against the accused under 
TADA. As the provision of the TADA are more rigorous and the penalty 
provided is more stringent and the procedure for trial prescribed is H 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A summary and compendious, the sanctioning process mentioned in Section 
20-A[2) must be adopted more seriously and exhaustively than the sanc-
tion contemplated in other penal statutes. [36

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