SAQUIB ABDUL HAMEED NACHAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 833 · Decided: 11-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 9 S.C.R. 833 
SAQUIB ABDUL HAMEED NACHAN 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 419-421 OF 2008) 
AUGUST 11, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAtJHAN, JJ.] 
Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002: s.32 - Confession/ 
statement made u/s.32 by an accused person - Admissibility 
A 
B 
of, against other co-accused - Held: Not admissible. 
C 
Reference to larger bench: Questions referred to larger 
'bench - After answering the questions, adjudication of matter 
on merits by larger bench - Held: Generally, there is no bar 
in deciding and considering the merits of the matter referred 
0 
to the larger bench -
However, after answering the reference 
by the larger Bench, it is for the reference court to decide the 
issue on merits on the basis of the answers given by the larger 
bench - Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002. 
· 
Reference was made by the Division Bench of the 
High Court for adjudication by the Full Bench of High 
Court, on the nature and admissibility of the statement/ 
confession made by an accused under Section 32 of the 
Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA). 
The Full Bench answered the reference holding that 
(1) the confessional statement recorded under Section 32 
E 
F 
of POTA cannot be used as a substantive piece of 
evidence against other co-accused and that (2) the 
statement recorded under Section 32 of POTA is G 
undoubtedly a statement made by a person and it can be 
used for any purpose to the extent a statement under 
Sections 161-164 of Cr.P.C. can be used. 
After answering the questions, the Full Bench 
833 
H 
834 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A considered the claim of the parties on merits and remitted 
the matter back to the Special POTA Court for deciding 
the application of the original accused No.1 for discharge, 
on the ground mentioned therein and in the light of the 
observations made in the judgment. The appeals were 
B filed challenging the conclusion as well the ultimate 
direction of the Full Bench of the High Court. By order 
dated 18.10.2005, this Court stayed the trial pending 
before the Special POTA Court. The writ petition under 
Article 32 of the Constitution by the accused no.4 and five 
c others and the SLP by accused no.12 were filed for 
vacating the stay order dated 18.10.2005. 
Disposing of the appeals, the writ petition and the 
SLP, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1. The decision in *Navjot Sandhu's case 
makes it clear that a confession/statement made under 
Section 32 of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA) 
by an accused person cannot be used as a piece of 
evidence for any purpose against the other co-accused. 
E In this view of the matter, the decision of the Full Bench 
is set aside insofar as the applicability of confessional 
statement of an accused under Section 32 of POTA 
against the other co-accused is concerned. It is clarified 
that the decision of this Court in Navjot Sandhu's case 
F shall govern the issue raised by the appellant. The 
interim order granted by this Court on 18.10.2005 staying 
the trial pending before the Special POTA Court is 
vacated. [Paras 10, 12] [847-C-H; 848-A] 
*State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru 
G (2005) 11 sec 600 - relied on. 
State v. Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253 - referred to. 
1.2. As regards the disposal of the matter by the Full 
H 
SAQUIB ABDUL HAMEED NACHAN v. STATE OF 
835 
MAHARASHTRA 
Bench on merits, generally, there is no bar in deciding 
A 
and considering the merits of the matter referred to the 
Full Bench. However, normally, after answering the 
reference by the larger Bench, it is for the reference Court 
to decide the issue on merits on the basis of the answers 
given by the larger Bench. In the case on hand, such 
B 
recourse was not followed by the Full Bench. As the 
grievance of the appellant is not seriously disputed, it is 
directed that the criminal writ petitions and the criminal 
application be heard by the Division Bench of the High 
Court on merits in the light of the decision in Navjot c 
Sandhu' s case. [Paras 11, 12] [847-D-G] 
Case Law Reference: 
c2005) 11 sec soo 
relied on 
Paras 8, 
9,10,11,12 
D 
(1999) 5 sec 253 
referred to 
Para 10 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 419-421 of 2008. 
E 
From the Judgment & Order dated 05.11.2004 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 
1650, 1742 & 983 of 2004. 
WITH 
W.P. (Crl.) No. 128 of 20013. 
SLP (Crl.) D. No. 17899 of 2008. 
F 
Akhil Sibal, Salim lnamdar,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.