Case Note & Summary
The judgment arose from a series of criminal appeals concerning the conviction of several accused under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and other related offences. The appeals were heard together due to common questions of law. The Designated Court at Surat had convicted some accused while acquitting others, leading to appeals by both the convicted individuals and the State of Gujarat seeking enhancement of sentences. The incidents in question involved two bomb blasts in Surat, resulting in casualties and injuries, which were linked to communal riots following the demolition of the Babri Masjid. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy among the accused to retaliate against the majority community. The trial involved extensive witness testimonies and confessional statements. The appellants contended that their convictions were invalid due to a breach of Section 20-A(1) of TADA, which mandates prior approval from the District Superintendent of Police for recording information about TADA offences. The State argued that the requirement was not applicable as the FIRs were registered before the insertion of this provision. The court analyzed the statutory requirements and previous case law, concluding that the approvals obtained were insufficient and did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act. Consequently, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and ordered the release of the appellants unless required in other cases, while dismissing the State's appeals for enhancement of sentences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - TADA Approval Requirement - Mandatory Nature of Approval - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 20-A(1) - The court held that the requirement for prior approval from the District Superintendent of Police for recording information about TADA offences is mandatory and cannot be delegated to any other authority. The absence of such approval rendered the trial and conviction legally unsustainable (Paras 9-29).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial and conviction of the appellants under TADA were vitiated due to lack of proper approval as mandated by Section 20-A(1) of the Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed Criminal Appeals No. 92 of 2009, 110 of 2009, and 658-659 of 2009, setting aside the convictions of the appellants due to non-compliance with Section 20-A(1) of TADA. The court ordered their immediate release unless required in other cases. The appeals filed by the State of Gujarat for enhancement of sentences were dismissed.
Law Points
- Mandatory provisions
- approval requirement
- TADA
- Section 20-A
- confessional statements
- sufficiency of evidence
