2016 Supreme(SC) 392

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
Mohd. Jalees Ansari and Others – Appellants
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 546 of 2004
Decided On : 11-05-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
Prior approval of District Superintendent of Police before taking up any investigation or recording a confession is mandatory u/s 20-A(1). Confession recorded u/s 15 without said prior approval u/s 20-A(1) would be invalid.
Confession of an accused validly recorded in anointer case can be used against him in another case even if the accused is subsequently discharged in the case in which he made the confession.
If a series of explosions occurring in different places in identical way is investigated by a single agency and TADA is validly invoked in first case, it can validly be invoked in other cases also.
Admissible against the maker, co-accused, abettor or a conspirator can form foundation or basis for conviction of the maker, co-accused, abettor or conspirator. However, guidelines laid down in (1994) 3 SCC 569 on 11.03.1994 should be followed in case of confessions recorded after 11.03.1994.

Headnote:(a) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 20-A(1) and 15 – Prior approval of District Superintendent of Police before recording any information – Mandatory – Any investigation or confession recorded without said prior approval – Invalid – Confessions of accused Nos. A9, A10, A11 and A13 having been recorded under TADA without prior approval and therefore without proper invocation of the Act, are without any legal sanction and cannot be relied upon. (Para 42, 46)

       (1994) 4 SCC 602; (2011) 6 SCC 358; (2012) 11 SCC 606 – Relied upon

       (b) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 20-A(1) and 15 – Confessions of A5 and A8 recorded in two cases under the Act – No FIR or other records of the cases available – Not known whether TADA was validly invoked or what happened to the two cases – Confessions so recorded cannot be relied upon in instant case. (Para 47)

       (c) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 20-A(1) and 15 – Confessions of A1 recorded in another case under the Act validly invoked – Subsequent discharge of A1 in the case – Would not in any way dilute or diminish the value of such confession – The confession can be used in present matter, (Para 48, 49, 50, 51)

       (1998) 4 SCC 351; (1997) 10 SCC 675 – Relied upon

       (d) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 20-A(1) – Same agency investigating five different crimes of explosions in identical way – Disclosure by one of the conspirators – Agency naturally deducing all explosions to be part of single conspiracy – TADA validly invoked in first case – TADA invoked in other cases as well – No infirmity – Held, Act invoked properly. (Para 55, 56)

       (e) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 20(A)2 – Sanction – Four orders of sanction issued by Directors of CBI – No infirmity in their assessment and exercise of power. (Para 57)

       (f) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 15(1) – Confession – Admissible against the maker, co-accused, abettor or a conspirator – Can form foundation or basis for conviction of the maker, co-accused, abettor or conspirator – Guidelines laid down in (1994) 3 SCC 569 on 11.03.1994 should be followed in case of confessions recorded after 11.03.1994. (Para 60, 61)

       (1999) 5 SCC 253; (1994) 3 SCC 569 – Relied upon

       (g) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 15 r/w rule 15, TADA Rules – Confession – A1 remanded to police custody on 28.02.1994 by Designated court, Mumbai – Produced in Ajmer court on 01.03.1994 – Again produced him before the court on 04.04.1994 – A1 not making any complain of being beaten or torture or forcible extraction of confession – Format of confession also consistent with Rule 15 – Making such allegations before Supreme Court – In view of certificate of satisfaction about voluntariness of the confession given by officer recording confession and other material circumstances, confession accepted as correctly recorded. (Para 62)

       (h) Sections 3, 4 and 5 – Confessions of A1, A2, A3, A4, A7, A14, A15 and A16 corroborated by other materials as also confessions of co-accused – Conviction maintained. (Para 70)

       (i) Sections 3, 4 and 5 – Conviction of A5, A8, A9, A10, A11 and A13 – Case of A5 and A11 held fully established on basis of confessions of co-accused and corroboration from other materials – Their conviction maintained – Against A8, A9, A10 and A13 there is only confession of other co-accused, not corroborated by any other material – Their conviction cannot be maintained. (Para 72)

       Facts of the case:

       There were 5 bomb blasts in various trains during the night intervening 5th and 6th of December, 1993.

       The crimes registered by the Five FIR’s, where the explosions had in fact occurred were transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation for investigation.

       The expert opinion of the FSL clearly indicates that the suspect/suspects had planted the explosive device which comes within the ambit of TADA and the facts reveals so far constitute offence punishable U/Ss 3, 4 & 5 of the TADA (P) Act also.

       The sequential nature of the explosions which had occurred in 5 running trains simultaneously clearly indicates that there existed a deep rooted conspiracy to strike terror in the people to cause loss to lives and damage to public properties it is, necessary that Section 3, 4 & 5 of the TADA (P) Act for further investigation in this case.

       When A1 Dr. Jalees Ansari was arrested in connection with Bombay Blast Case, 7 firearms, 2 grenades, 20 detonators, live cartridges, plastic bag containing explosives and timer device were found during search and seizure. At the time of arrest of A2 Ashfaque Khan, visiting card of A1 Dr. Jalees Ansari as well as diary containing name of ‘Abdullah’ with a phone number was found. Similarly, at the time of arrest of A4 Jamal Alvi, certain arms and explosives were recovered.

       A5 Afaq Khan was arrested on 20.01.1994 by Delhi Police in connection with Case no. 46/94 of P.S. Malviya Nagar, New Delhi under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of TADA Act.

       Finding of the Court:

       The prosecution case stands fully established as against A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A7, A11, A14, A15 and A16. Conviction of A8, A9, A10 and A13 cannot be maintained.

       Result: Appeal disposed. Appeals of A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A7, A11, A14, A15 and A16 dismissed and appeals of A8, A9, A10 and A13 allowed.