LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus MOHINUDDIN JAMAL ALVI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 649 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. MOHINUDDIN JAMAL ALY! & ANR. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2464-2466of2014) MAY04,2016 [A.K. SIKRI AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - ss . . (3)(2)(ii), 3(3), 6(1) and 20A - Requirement of approval u!s. 20A - Whether it is only 'District Superintendent of Police' whose approval will meet the requirements u!s. 20A, or it can be given by an officer higher in rank - Held: An authority even' higher in rank tha,n 'District Superintendent of Police' would not be competent to give approval - In the instant case, since the prior approval of 'District Superintendent of Police' was not taken, the trial under the provisions of TADA Act and Explosive Substances Act got vitiated - Acci•sed are liable to be acquitted - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - s. 4A. Allowing the appeal of accused and dismissing that of the State, the Court -HELD: 1. Even an authority higher in rank would not be competent to give the approval as required under sub-Section(l) of Section 20A of the TADA Act. [Para 4] [651-F] 2. Since the prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police was not taken in. the instant case, the trial got vitiated on this ground ·itself. The appeals filed by the convict persons are allowed setting aside their conviction. The other appeals which are preferred by the State are dismissed. (Para 7) (654-D-E] Hussein Ghadially @ MH.GA.Shaikh & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat (20!4) 8 SCC 425: 2014 (9) SCR 364;. Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja & Anr. Vs State of. Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC .302: 1995 (2} ~uppl. SCR 637 . - relied on. Case Law Reference 2014 (9) SCR 36 relied on 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 6~7 ,,_ relied on 649 1>ara4 Para_5 --~· A B c D E F G Jf - 650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 2 S.C.R. A CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. B 2464-2466of2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 24 .04.2012 of the Court of Judge, Designated Court for Rajasthan, Ajmer Tada Sessions Case No. 1, 2, 3of1999. WITH Crl.A. No. 464-466 of2013 .. R. K. Dash, Sr. Adv., S. S. Shamshery, AAG, Ajay Choudhary, Mohd. lrshad Hanif, N. A. Usmani, Arif Ali Khan, Amit Sharma, Prateek c Yadav, Ms. Anu Dixit Kaushik, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Nidhi (SCLSC), Amit Sharma, Prateek Yadav, Advs. with them for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.K. SIKRI, J._l. All these appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 24.04.2012 rendered by the Designated Court for D Rajasthan at Ajmer in TADA Special Case Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of 1999. 2. Four accused persons were arrayed and prosecuted by the prosecution under Sections 3(2)(ii), 3(3) and 6(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, l 987(hereinafter referred to as "TADA Act" and. Section 4A of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. E The TADA Court has acquitted two accused, namely, M. Jamal Alvi and Habib Ahmed. Against their acquittal, State of Rajasthan has filed appeals which are registered as Criminal Appeal Nos. 2464-66of2014. Other two accused, namely, Abre Rehmat Ansari @ Qari and Dr. Mohd. Jalees Ansari, have been convicted by the TADA Court and challenging that conviction, these persons have filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 464-466 of2013. It is for this reason, we have heard all these appeals together which are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Mr. R.K. Dash, learned senior counsel, appearing for the convicted accused persons submitted at the outset that he would not be going into the merits of the case because of the reason that the prosecution G has to fail due to non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 20A of the TADA Act. For this reason, we are e$chewing any discus~ion on the merits of the case. Section 20A deals with the cognizance of offense that has to be taken under TADA A.ct and reads as under:- H STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. MOHINUDDIN JAMAL ALVI & ANR. [A.K. SIKRI, J.] "20-A Cognizance of offence. ( l) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no information about the commission of an offence under this Act shall be recorded by the police without the prior approval of the District Superintendl(!it of Police. (2) No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the Inspector-General of Police, or as the case may be, the Commissioner of Police." 4. As per the aforesaid Section, no information about the comm
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.