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