Judgment :

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.

The issue that falls for consideration in the present appeal is whether the confessional statements recorded in a case relating to offences under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987 [for short `TADA Act"] would be admissible in evidence against the accused in prosecution for offences other than those under the TADA Act. In order to answer the aforesaid issue arising for our consideration, some background facts are required to be stated so as to make it easier to appreciate the issues urged.

2. The private respondent No. 4 was arrested in TADA Case No. 114 of 1991 and 114-A of 1991. In the said case, there was a confessional statement made by the private respondent no. 4 which was recorded on 17.03.1991 along with another co-accused. The said confessional statements so recorded by the police were used by the prosecution as substantive evidence in the aforesaid TADA case. The aforesaid TADA case resulted in the conviction of the private respondent No. 4, which was finally confirmed even by this Court.

3. Apart from the aforesaid TADA case, a separate complaint was filed by Sh. Ghansyam Vijay Kumar Bendre, pursuant to which a criminal case came to be registered at the Vithalwadi Police Station, Ulhasnagar against the private respondent No. 4 and some others for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 353 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code [for short "IPC"] read with Section 35(c) of the Arms Act, 1959. The provisions of the TADA Act were also applied in the said case. However, the said provisions of the TADA Act were dropped since the TADA Review / Screening Committee came to the conclusion that offences under the TADA Act were not attracted in the said case. Faced with the aforesaid situation, the prosecution filed an application before the Sessions Judge - Kalyan, praying that the original confessional statement of the private respondent No. 4 made in the aforesaid TADA case(s) be called for. The said application was rejected by the trial Court by its order dated 22.11.2005. The aforesaid order passed by the trial Court was challenged by the prosecution as well as the relative of the deceased by filing a Criminal Revision Application and a Criminal Writ Petition respectively in the High Court of Bombay. The High Court, after hearing the parties, however, dismissed both the aforesaid revision application and the writ petition by an order dated 29.09.2006. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present Special Leave Petition was filed in which leave was granted and consequently the present appeal.

4. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant died and therefore an application seeking for substitution of the appellant was filed.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the said application and have also gone through the records. After hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and for the reasons stated in the application, we allow the application for substitution of the appellant in terms of this order and the name of Kamal Sunderdas Bathija be substituted in place of Sunderlal Kanaiyalal Bhatija.

6. Having allowed the application seeking the substitution, we are now required to deal with the main appeal. At this stage, we would like to indicate that being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.09.2006 passed by the Bombay High Court, the State of Maharashtra, filed a Special Leave Petition in this Court, challenging the legality of the same, which was registered as CRLMP Nos. 8215-16 of 2008. Since, there was a delay in filing, an application for condonation of the delay was also filed by the State of Maharashtra. Both, the aforesaid appeals, as also the application, were listed for consideration before a bench of this Court and by a judgment and order dated 13.05.2008, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on the ground of delay as also on merits.

7. Subsequently, an application was filed by the State of Maharashtra whic