2005 Supreme(SC) 72

2005(1) Supreme 187
Supreme Court of India
(From Designated Court No. 3 at Ahmedabad)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, B.N. Agrawal, H.K. Sema, G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto —Appellant
versus
State of Gujarat —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2001
With
Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 2001
And
Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2001
Decided on 12-1-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant in Cr.A.No. 526/2001 : Manish Singhvi, Saurabh Ajay, Ashok K. Mahajan, Advocates.
For the Appellant in Crl.A.No. 545/2001 : Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Adolf Mathew, Puneet Rai, Vinay Arora, Sanjay Jain, Advocates.
For the Appellant in Crl.A.No. 665/2001 : Ms. Asha G. Nair and Ms. Anu Mohla, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Hemantika Wahi and Ms. Aruna Gupta, Advocates.

Important pointThe confessional statement duly recorded under Section 15 of TADA and Rules framed thereunder would continue to remain admissible for the offences under any other law which were tried along with TADA offences under Section 12 of the Act, notwithstanding that the accused was acquitted of offences under TADA in the same trial.

Headnote:Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987—Sections 12, 15 and 18—Joint trial of any offence under TADA together with any other offence—If the accused is acquitted of offence under TADA—Admissibility of confessional statement of an accused made to a police officer under Section 15 TADA for offences under any other law which were tried along with TADA offences under Section 12 of the Act—Whether confessional statement duly recorded under Section 15 of TADA would continue to remain admissible for other such offences—(Yes)—Reference answered accordingly.

       Held : Section 12 which empowers the Designated Court to try any other offence with which the accused may be charged under the Code at the same trial provided the offence is connected with such other offence. This section has been brought to the statute book in consonance with the preamble of the Act, which says, “for the prevention of, and for coping with, terrorist and disruptive activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” Therefore, Section 12 is introduced to take care of the matters connected with or incidental to terrorist activities. (Para 32)

       A conjoint reading of two sections as a whole, it leaves no manner of doubt that one provision is to be construed with reference to the other provision and vice versa so as to make the provision consistent with the object sought to be achieved. The scheme and object of the Act being the admissibility of the confession recorded under Section 15 of the Act in the trial of a person or co-accused, abettor or conspirator is charged and tried in the same case together with the accused, as provided under Section 12 of the Act. (Para 33)

       Section 12(1) as quoted above authorises the Designated Court to try offences under the TADA along with another offence with which the accused may be charged under Cr.P.C. at the same trial. The only embargo imposed on the exercise of the power is that the offence under the TADA is connected with any other offence being tried together. Further, Section 12(2) provides that the Designated Court may convict the accused person of offence under that Act or any rule made thereunder or under any other law and pass any sentence authorised under that Act or the rules or under any other law, as the case may be for the punishment thereof, if in the course of any trial under the TADA the accused persons are found to have committed any offence either under that Act or any rule or under any other law. The legislative intendment underlying Section 12(1) and (2) is clearly discernable, to empower the Designated Court to try and convict the accused for offences committed under any other law along with offences committed under the Act, if the offence is connected with such other offence. The language, “if the offence is connected with such other offence” employed in Section 12(1) of the Act has great significance. The necessary corollary is that once the other offence is connected with the offence under the TADA and if the accused is charged under the Code and tried together in the same trial, the Designated Court is empowered to convict the accused for the offence under any other law, notwithstanding the fact that no offence under TADA is made out. This could be the only intendment of the legislature. To hold otherwise, would amount to rewrite or recast legislation and read something into it which is not there. (Paras 35 and 36)

       The Trial under TADA is a departure from the ordinary law. The persons who are tried for offences specified under the provisions of TADA are a distinct class of persons and the procedure prescribed for trying them for the aggravated and incensed nature of offences are under different classification distinguishable from the ordinary criminals and procedure. This distinction and classification of grouping of the accused and the offences to be tried under TADA are to achieve the meaningful purpose and object of the Act as reflected from the preamble as well as the statement of objects and reasons. The Act, as noticed above, is a special provision for special purpose. It is a departure from the ordinary procedural law. Plea of discriminatory treatment for want of availability of ordinary procedural law would not be available. (Paras 37 and 38)

       For the reasons aforestated, we are of the view that the decision in Nalini’s case has laid down correct law and we hold that the confessional statement duly recorded under Section 15 of TADA and Rules framed thereunder would continue to remain admissible for the offences under any other law which were tried along with TADA offences under Section 12 of the Act, notwithstanding that the accused was acquitted of offences under TADA in the same trial. (Para 39)