Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.N.RAO, S.R.NAYAK
Salauddin, Nisar Ahmed Bhat - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P.rep.by the Inspector of Police, East Zone, Team-I, CCS, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 08-29-96
TADA ACT - PRIOR APPROVAL - PREVIOUS SANCTION - ISSUE ESTOPPEL - JURISDICTION - TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1987, SEC. 20-A(1), 20-A(2).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused in a case registered under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The petitioners challenged the validity of the prior approval and previous sanction granted under Section 20-A(1) and 20-A(2) of the Act, respectively, contending that the same were not obtained in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The petitioners also contended that the Designated Court did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences under the Act against the petitioner in W.P. No. 7594/96, as there was no previous sanction under Section 20-A(2) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the prior approval granted by the Commissioner of Police under Section 20-A(1) of the Act was valid, as the Commissioner of Police was the competent authority to grant such approval in the City of Hyderabad. The Court further held that the previous sanction granted by the Commissioner of Police under Section 20-A(2) of the Act was also valid, as the Commissioner of Police was satisfied that the accused had committed offences punishable under the Act. The Court also held that the Designated Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences under the Act against the petitioner in W.P. No. 7594/96, as there was a valid prior approval under Section 20-A(1) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the prior approval granted by the Commissioner of Police under Section 20-A(1) of the TADA Act was valid? 2. Whether the previous sanction granted by the Commissioner of Police under Section 20-A(2) of the TADA Act was valid? 3. Whether the Designated Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences under the TADA Act against the petitioner in W.P. No. 7594/96?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the prior approval granted by the Commissioner of Police under Section 20-A(1) of the TADA Act was valid, as the Commissioner of Police was the competent authority to grant such approval in the City of Hyderabad. The Court relied on the provisions of Section 5 of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348-F, which vested the control and supervision of the police force in the City of Hyderabad in the Commissioner of Police. 2. The Court held that the previous sanction granted by the Commissioner of Police under Section 20-A(2) of the TADA Act was also valid, as the Commissioner of Police was satisfied that the accused had committed offences punishable under the Act. The Court relied on the provisions of Section 20-A(2) of the Act, which required the Commissioner of Police to be satisfied that the accused had committed offences punishable under the Act before granting previous sanction. 3. The Court held that the Designated Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences under the TADA Act against the petitioner in W.P. No. 7594/96, as there was a valid prior approval under Section 20-A(1) of the Act. The Court relied on the provisions of Section 20-A(1) of the Act, which required the prior approval of the Commissioner of Police before any information about the commission of an offence under the Act could be recorded by the police.
Final Decision: The Court allowed W.P. No. 7594/96 and discharged the petitioner (Accused No. 8) from all the charges framed against him under the provisions of the TADA Act. The Court dismissed W.P. No. 7700/96.
( 1 ) THE Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, for short the act , was allowed to be a history by efflux of eight years time fixed under sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Act, but the question whether the prosecution launched against the two petitioners in these two writ petitions under the provisions of the Act is valid or not is still engaging the attention of the Court.
( 2 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 7594 of 1996 is Accused No. 8 and the petitioner in W. P. No. 7700of 1996 is Accused No. 2 in Sessions Caseno. 595 of 1994 (Crime no. 151/93) on the file of the Designated Court-cum-Metropolitan Sessions judge, Hyderabad. The petitioner in W. P. No. 7594 of 1996 has prayed for Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the records in S. C. No. 595/94 on the file of the Designated Court- cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad declaring that the action of the respondent in invoking the provisions of the Act, Explosive Substances Act and sections 120-B, 124-A, 153-A and 153-B of Indian Penal Code as against the petitioner as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently discharge and set him at liberty of the said charges under the Act and direct the Designated court to transfer the case to ordinary criminal Court to be dealt with in accordance with law. The petitioner in W. P. No. 7700 of 1996 has prayed for a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, direction or order declaring that framing of the charges against him under the provisions of the act in S. C. No. 595 of 1994 is null and void and consequently discharge the petitioner from the offences under the Act and to direct the Designated Court to transfer the case in S. C. No. 595 of 1994 to ordinary criminal Court for disposal in accordance with law as provided under Section 18 of the Act.
( 3 ) SINCE common questions of facts and that of law arise for our considerations and decision, the writ petitions were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Sri K. G. Kannabhiran, the learned senior counsel appeared for the petitioners and Sri ramesh Ranganath, the learned G. P. for Home appeared on behalf of the learned Additional Advocate General and placed their submissions in support of their respective cases. The departmental file and the records in S. C. No. 595 of 1994 are secured and placed before us. Counter-affidavit is also filed on behalf of the respondent-State in both the writ petitions.
( 4 ) THE facts leading to the filing of these two writ petitions be stated briefly as under: on receipt of credible information that Kashmiri Muslim youths were indulging in terrorist and disruptive activities in Hyderabad, Sri T. V. Raju, inspector of Police (S. I. T.) along with his staff raided Roomno. l, Nizamia Tibbi college Hostel, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad on 10-11-1993 and arrested one Sri gowher Ameen Meer, an agent of iquamiul-Muslimeen and seized one hand-grenade and certain letters from his possession. On the basis of the information given by Sri Gowher Ameen Meer, simultaneous raids were conducted and one sri Nisar Ahmed Bhat @ Mushtaq Bhat (Accused No. 2 - the petitioner in W. P. No. 7700/96) was arrested from Room No. 215 of New Asian Lodge, Nampally, hyderabad and from his possession two hand-grenades, huge quantities of explosives and other materials were seized. In his confessional statement, recorded before the Panch witnesses, Sri Nisar Ahmed Bhat stated that he was acting as an agent of iquamiul Muslimeen at the behest of one Hilal Baig @ Peer @ Shafeeq @ Rauf and Kursheed Ahmed Baig @ Nayeem of Jammu and kahsmir. He also stated that among others, he had sent Md. Salauddin, the petitioner in W. P. No. 7594 of 1996 to Pakistan for training. Sri T. V. Raju, the inspector of Police (S. I. T.), lodged a complaint at 15. 00 hours on 10-11-1993. In the complaint, in addition to the facts stated supra, th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
