ORDER

In this appeal, the order dated 21st April, 1997 passed by the learned Addl. Designated Judge, Ahmedabad rejecting the application made by the appellant for dropping the charge under Sections 3 and 5 of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short TADA) in Terrorist Criminal Case No. 3/96 arising out of I.C.R. No. 94/93 of the Police Station Rakhiyal, District Ahmedabad on account of non compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 20A of TADA, is under challenge.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of three Judges Bench of this Court in Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja and Anr. v. State of Gujarat1. It has been held in the said decision that cognizance of the offence under TADA can be taken on compliance of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 20A and sub-section (2) of Section 20A of TADA. Sub-section (1) of Section 20A of TADA provides:

20A(1) 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 police without the prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police.

3. The lear