IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Merely because of the failure or/the court to mention that it had perused the order of sanction while taking cognizance cannot lead to the conclusion that the existence of the order of sanction could be doubted.
(2) The very preparation of bombs and possession of bombs would tantamount to terrorising the people and if proved, it will be a terrorist act and sub-sees. (1) and (3) of Section 3 of TADA may also be attracted.

JUDGMENT

S. Mohan, J. - Criminal-Appeal No. 327 of 1994 is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th April, 1994 of the High Court of Calcutta in C.O. No. 9181 (W) of 1993.

Criminal Appeal No. 328 of 1994 is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th April, 1994 of the High Court of Calcutta in C.O. No. 8377 (W) of 1993.

Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 1994 is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th April, 1994 of the High Court of Calcutta in C.O. No. 8378 (W) of 1993.

2. All these cases arise out of writ petitions filed in the High Court of Calcutta challenging the validity of sanction and taking cognizance of the cases against each of the respondents by the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'T ADA'). A further challenge in the writ petition was also made to the 'vires' of TADA. The orders of sanction and taking cognizance were quashed. The challenge to the Act was not gone into since the same was pending at the relevant time before this Court.

3. To highlight the issue involved, it is enough if we advert to the facts in Criminal Appeal No. 328 of 1994 since C.O. No. 8377 (W) of 1993, against which this appeal has been preferred, is the main case. The same decision was applied to Criminal Appeal Nos. 327 and 329 of 1994. The short facts are as under:

On the evening of March 16.1993, an explosion occurred at or near Premises No. 267, B.B. Ganguly Street, Calcutta. 69 persons died, 5 of them died as a result of direct blast and 46 others were injured. The said premises and some other buildings adjoining it collapsed and/or were badly damaged.

A complaint was lodged on March 17, 1993 regarding this incident by Mr. B.K. Chttopadhaya, Sub-Inspector attached to Bowbazar Police Station. This complaint was treated as First Information Report. On that basis, case No. 84 dated 17.3.1993 was registered in the Police Station under Sections 120-B/436/326/307/302 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Having regard to the gravity of the offence, the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta passed an order that the case shall be investigated by a team of high-ranking police officials. In the course of investigation witnesses were examined, various seizures were made and confessions made by two of the accused, namely, Pannalal Jaysora and Mohammed Gulzar were recorded by a learned Metropolitan Magistrate on April 7 and May 19, 1993 respectively. During investigations it appeared that materials had transpired for prosecuting the accused under Sections 3 and 4 of TADA. On 3rd of May, 1993, information to this effect was given to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The learned Magistrate made a record of this fact and observed that the investigating officer might proceed to investigate offences under TADA.

Upon completion of investigation, the police obtained sanction to prosecute under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act from the State Government. Sanction under Section 21 A (2) of TADA from the Police Commissioner was also obtained. The charge-sheet was submitted on 14th June, 1993, well within 90 days as is spoken to under Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code').

4. The sanction to prosecute under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and the sanction under Section 20 (A) (2) were obtained on 11th of June, 1993. While granting sanction under Section 20 (A) (2) of TADA it was mentioned that the records were. placed before the sanctioning authority for examination and perusal. It appeared that for the last 5/6 years accused Pannalal Jaysora had been manufacturing bombs in the 'khas khas' room on the first floor of 267, B.B. Ganguly Street, Calcutta as and when required by accused Mohammed Rashid Khan, first respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 328 of 1994. Accused Jaysora was introduced to other accused, namely, Mohammed A