Judgment

Thomas, J.-A Public Prosecutor moved in the trial Court for permis­sion to use a confessional statement recorded from an accused during investigation of another crime, but the trial judge disallowed the motion on the premise that unless the confession was recorded during the investigation of the very offence under trial it cannot be used in evidence of that case. The order thus passed by the trial Court (A Designated Court under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Preven­tion) Act, 1987, (TADAA as acronym) is now being challenged by the State of Gujarat by special leave.

2. It is not necessary to set out facts of the case which is now pending before the Designated Court. Nonetheless, some skeletal facts necessary for disposal of these appeals have to be stated: The three respondents in these appeals were accused in some cases registered by different police stations of Gujarat State following certain instances of bomb blasts at different places. Investigation revealed that those instances were the aftermath of conspiracies hatched by different conspirators who operated in different areas. Hence, offences came to be registered at different police stations and different inves