RANGKU DUTTA @ RANJAN KUMAR DUTTA versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2011] 8 S.C.R. 639 · Decided: 20-05-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
(2011) 8 .S.C.R. 639 
!RAhlGKU DUTTA @ RANJAN KUMAR DUTTA 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2307 of 2009) 
MAY 20, 2011 
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 
A 
B 
- s.20-A(1) - Conviction of appellant-accused by Designated 
TADA Court - Challenged -on ground of. violation of the C 
provisions contained under s.20(A)(1) - Held: The Parliament 
through s. 20-A has clearly manifested its intention to treat the 
offences under TADA seriously inasmuch as under s,20-A(1), 
notwithstanding anything contained in the CrPC, no 
information about the commission of an offence under 1ADA o 
shall even be recorded without the prior approval of the District 
Superintendent of Police - It is not the requirement under 
s.20-A(1) to have the prior approval only in writing - Prior· 
approval may be either in wn'ting or oral also - S.20(A)(1) is 
a mandatory requirement of Jaw - First, it starts with an E 
overriding clause and, thereafter, to emphasise its mandatory 
nature, it uses the expression "No" after the ove.rriding clause 
- Whenever the intent of a statute is mandatory, it is clothed 
with a negative command - Also, the requirement of 
s.20(A)(1) was introduced by way of an amendment with a view F 
to prevent abuse of the provisions of TADA.:.. Thvs, the Covrt 
while examining the question of complying with th.e saia 
provision must examine it strictly - The requirement of prior 
approval must be satisfied at the time of recording the 
information - If there is absence of approval at the stage of G 
recording the information, the same cannot be cured by 
subsequent carrying on of the investigation by the DSP - In 
the instant case, even verbal approval of the concerned 
authority was not obtained before recording the information -
639 
.. 
.H 
640 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 8 S.C.R. 
A Therefore, the entire proceeding right from the registering of 
the FIR, filing of the charge-sheet and the subsequent trial was 
vitiated by a legal infirmity and there was a total miscarriage 
of justice in holding the trial, ignoring the vital requirement of 
law- Judgment of the Designated TADA Court therefore set 
B aside. 
Appellant was allegedly an ULFA extremist. Placing 
reliance upon the FIR lodged by PW15-0ffice-in-charge 
of police station, against the appellant and other accused, 
the Designated TADA Court convicted the appellant 
C under Section 12081302 IPC read with Section 3(2)(1) of 
the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 
1987 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 
In the instant appeal, the appellant challenged the 
o judgment of the Designated TADA Court on the ground 
that the FIR had been recorded in clear violation of the 
provisions contained under Section 20(A)(1) of the TADA 
Act, as a result whereof, the entire proceeding 
subsequent thereto was vitiated and this also vitiated the 
E judgment and order of the designated TADA court. The 
appellant urged that in accordance with the provisions 
contained under Section 20(A)(1) of the TADA Act, no 
information about the commission of any offence under 
the said Act should be recorded by the Police without 
F prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police and 
that in the present case, it was clear from the evidence 
of PW 15 that he did not take the approval of the 
Superintendent of Police before recording the FIR. 
The question which therefore arose for consideration 
G was whether In this case the mandatory requirement of 
Section 20(A)(1) of the TADA was complied with. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD:1. The requirement of Section 20(A)(1) of the 
• 
• RANGKU DUTIA@ RANJAN KUMAR DUTIA v. 
641 
STATE OF ASSAM 
TADA was introduced by way of an amendment with a A 
view to prevent abuse of the provisions of TADA. The 
Parliament, through Section 20-A of TADA has clearly 
manifested its intention to treat the offences under TADA 
seriously inasmuch as under Section 20-A(1), 
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of B 
Criminal Procedure, no information about the 
commission of an offence under TADA shall even be 
recorded without the prior approval of the District 
Superintendent of Police and under Section 20-A(2), no 
court shall take congizance of any offence under TADA c 
without the previous sanction of the authorities 
prescribed therein. It is not the requirement under Section 
20·A(1) of the TADA Act to have the prior approv

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