IMPORTANT POINT
The sanctioning process mentioned in Section 20A(2) of TADA Act must be adopted more seriously and exhaustively than the sanction contemplated in other penal statutes.

Headnote:(i) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Sections 5 & 20A(2)-Recovery of pistol, gun, bag containing submachine guns, cartridges etc. from appellants-Sanction for prosecution-Valid sanction was sine-qua-non for enabling prosecuting agency to approach Court to take cognizance of offence under TADA-All that the DGP had before him to consider the question of granting sanction were the copy of FIR and an application containing some skeleton facts-Sanction order showed total non-application of mind-It being not result of a serious consideration, sanction could not be treated as one under Section 20A(2) of TADA. (Paras 8 to 15)
       (ii) TADA Act, 1987-Section 5 -Conviction under - Appeal -Conviction found unsustainable for want of valid sanction for prosecution under Section 20A(2) of the Act-Can accused be Convicted under Arms Act? No.
       Held : It is obvious that power of the Designated Court to charge the accused with any offence other than TADA offences can be exercised only in a trial conducted for any offence under TADA. When trial for offence under TADA could not have been held by the Designated Court for want of valid sanction envisaged in Section 20-A(2) the consequence is that no valid trial could have been held by that court into any offence under the Arms Act also. It is clear that a Designated Court has no independent power to try any other offence. Therefore, no conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act is possible on the materials collected by the Designated Court in the present case. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-The Designated Court, Jamnagar convicted 4 persons under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, (for short TADA ). They were also tried for certain offences under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 but the trial Judge refrained from convicting them under that section on the premise that the other offence under TADA is a cognate offence of a graver dimension. In the matter of sentence the trial Court awarded rigorous imprisonment for 7 years as against first accused Rambhai Nathabhai Gadhvi, while the three others were given only a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each. The convicted persons have come up in appeal under Section 19 of TADA and the State of Gujarat have filed an appeal for enhancement of the sentence of the first accused to the maximum limit provide in law. We heard both appeals together.

2. First accused is the father of second accused Kalu Rambhai Gadhvi and also elder brother of the fourth accused Nagshi Nathabhai Gadhvi. The third accused Hitesh Vajshi Pindariya is their neighbour. The nub of the case against them is that they all were actively engaged in smuggling of goods particularly arms and ammunitions. First accused is described as the kingpin of the joint venture of all the accused in the nefarious activities.

3. Further details of the prosecution case would show that the District Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar, got some information about the activities of the accused and so he proceeded to their residence at Khambalia (in Jamnagar District) with a posse of Police personnel during the wee hours on 18.6.1993. On the way, he secured the presence of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (PW-4) and two other persons for witnessing the operation which was in the offing. On arrival at the residence of the first accused the Superintendent of Police knocked at the door and first accused opened the door with a pistol of his hand, but was suddenly overpowered by the police. The Superintendent of Police also succeeded in snatching the pistol from him. Police party then raided the house of the second accused and seized one gun and another air gun and a belt containing 10 cartridges besides currency notes for Rs. 67,000/-. When the person of the third accused was searched a pistol and some cartridges were recovered. Thereupon the police wanted to raid the ice factory of the accused. In that operation they succeeded in unearthing 9 boxes containing smuggled goods. First accused was arrested and on interrogation the Superintendent of Police came to know of the places where first accused had hidden other articles. When he was taken to one such place he removed a heap of stones and disintered a bag containing submachine guns, pistols, cartridges etc. From another place some more firearms and ammunitions were recovered. On 23.6.1993 police arrested the fourth accused and recovered a pistol from a place where that firearm was concealed.

4. After obtaining sanction purportedly under Section 20A(2) of TADA the prosecution was launched against all the accused. After trial the Designated Court convicted the four accused and sentenced them as aforesaid.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant adopted a twin strategy to get the appellants absolved of the conviction and sentence. Counsel attacked the veracity of the evidence and tried to persuade us to hold that the evidence of the prosecution is unrealistic and unreliable. Next he focussed on the validity of the sanction under Section 20A of TADA.

6. It is advantageous to advert first to the contention relating to validity of the sanction, for, if that contention deserves approval it renders the entire trial vitiated and then it would be unnecessary to harp on the other contention.

7. Under Section 20A(2) of TADA: "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."

8. Taking cognizance is the ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 1074

IMPORTANT POINTThe sanctioning process mentioned in Section 20A(2) of TADA Act must be adopted more seriously and exhaustively than the sanction contemplated in other penal statutes.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
The sanctioning process mentioned in Section 20A(2) of TADA Act must be adopted more seriously and exhaustively than the sanction contemplated in other penal statutes.