LexSEENI NAINAR MOHAMMED versus STATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 312
SEEN! NAINAR MOHAMMED
v.
Sl'ATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 498 of2012)
. B
APRIL27,2017
c
D
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 -
s.20A - Cognizance of offence - Prior approval of sanctioning
authority - Compliance of - On facts, individual attacked by
appellants with weapons, resulting in his death - Conviction of the
appellants uls. J 20B rlw ss. 302, 147, 148 and 149 JPC and ss. 3(2),
(3), (4) of TADA and sentenced to life imprisonment by courts below -
On appeal, held: Section 20-A(l) must be construed by indicating
that prior approval from the competent authority is mandatory for
taking cognizance of offence punishable under TADA - However,
sanctioning authority to keep in mind that application of such
provisions requires strict interpretation and its non-compliance, may
vitiate the entire proceedings in the case - On facts, there was no
sufficient compliance of the provisions of s.20A - Sanctioning
E Authority without pursuing the relevant documents issued the order
of sanction - Sanction was granted mechanically, without
application of mind - Confessions of two accused was involuntary
and contradicted with each other - Sanctioning authority did not
have necessary material before him to show that the alleged act of
F
causing death of the deceased was done with intent to create terror
in the minds of public at large - Thus, the approvals granted by
Superintendent of Police and JG, CBI completely invalid lacking
compliance of the requirements prescribed u/s. 20-A - As a result of
illegal sanction order, criminal proceedings for prosecution under
TADA Act vitiated entirely - Order of conviction passed by the TADA
G c9urt quashed and set aside.
H
Evidence:
Test identification parade - Reliability of - When accused
already seen through newspaper and prosecution witness never
calledfor identification of the accused - Held: Test identification
312
SEEN! NAINAR MOHAMMED v. STATE REP. BY DSP
313
parade was a farce as after the pictures of the accused had been
A
published in the newspaper, the identification parade which is a
very weak piece of evide1ce should not have been conducted.
Confessions of accused - Reliability - Held: Non-volunt01y
confession cannot form the basis of conviction - On facts,
confessions of accused being involuntmy as they were taken in the B
immediate custody of high security of CBI, cannot be relied upon.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The whole proceedings in the instant case were
vitiated. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence passed
by the Designated Court is quashed and set-aside. {Para 281[334-
C
BJ
2.1 The sanction granted on 16.09.1997 by PW-28 IG,
referred to A-1 's confession only recorded on 3.04.1997 but it·
did not refer to the confession of A-6 which was recorded on
25.10.1994. This was the only document which revealed that A-6
D
addressed and advised A-1 to A-5 to commit the murder of 'R',
with intention to create terror in the minds of public at large in
Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the confession of A-6 is the only document
which refers to the intention to create terror as required under
Section 3 of TADA Act. No other material or no other witness
E
spoke about the intention of the accused to commit the murder
with intention to create terror in the minds of public which is
main ingredient for invoking the TADA Act. Unfortunately, the
said document was neither referred to nor relied upon by the
Sanctioning Authority in the sanction order. [Para 7][320-F-H]
2.2 The confession of A-1 is totally contradictory to the
confession of A-6. It appears from the facts that the Investigating
Officer suppressed the material document by not placing the same
before the Sanctioning Authority. The TADA court convicted the
accused under the TADA Act on the basis of confession of A-6
F
and not on the basis of any other material. The other point which
G
is noted that the Sanctioning Authority-PW-28 admitted in hi~
deposition that he did not know Tamil and did not go through the
entire records which were in Tamil. Therefore, it is clear that the
Sanctioning Authority did not apply his mind to the records in its
entirety and granted sanction only after considering certain H
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 3 S.C.R.
A documents which were in English. Therefore, it is accepted thaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.