2002(1) Crimes 126 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Additional Sessions Judge Court, New Delhi)
K.T. Thomas & S.N. Variava, JJ.
Nazir Ahmad Bhatt —Appellant
versus
State of Delhi —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 2001
Decided on 2-11-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sushil Kumar, R.P. Wadhwani, Advocate. for Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate/Advocates.
For the Respondent : Anoop Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate, D.S. Mehra and K.L. Janjani, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction passed by designated Court under Section 4 of TADA, based on confession under Section 15 of TADA and seizure of stickers, leaflets from the House of the convict lends support to the fact that confession is true and voluntary. No legal infirmity is there. Conviction is confirmed. Appeal under Section 19 of TADA is liable to be dismissed.

Headnote:Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987—Section 4—Conviction of appellant under—­Appeal under Section 19 against conviction to save disqualification in Bank Service—Conviction based on recoveries of leaflets, stickers containing exhortation for liberalisation of Kashmir—Confession under S. 15 of TADA—Memorandum of caution as required under Rule 15 complied with—Admissible in evidence—Question of reliability—Contention it is not voluntary—Not proved—Effect—Confession is voluntary and conviction under Section 4 proper—Appeal dismissed—1994(2) SCC 569 referred—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 161, 313 and 463 consi­dered.

       Held : We are not disposed to convict a person merely because some stickers and leaflets etc., containing exhortations for liberation of Kashmir, were found in his house unless it is shown that he had a part in making or using such materials. (Para 3)

       But held : If one reads Ext. P-25 he cannot but form the irresistible impression that activities were targeted against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India vis-a-vis the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Hence it is unnecessary to ponder over the question whether Ext. P25 would really amount to disruptive activities. None can even doubt, reading Ext. P-25, that it amounts to disruptive activities as defined in Section 4 of TADA. It is not necessary to cogitate over the question whether Ext. P-25 is admissible in evidence as Section 15 of TADA has removed the lid of inadmissibility, if the confession was made to a police officer not lower in rank than a Superintendent of Police. There is no dispute that PW-4 was holding such a rank during April 1995. (Para 6)

       There is no dispute that a memorandum to the above effect has been appended to the confession signed by PW-4. (Para 8)

       Thus, it is clear that what was required by law for compliance with as precautionary measures have been complied with by PW-4. In our view, resort to Section 463 of the Code is unnecessary on the facts of this case because PW-4 had administered, the caution to the confessor on 19.4.1995, before proceeding to record the confession, that the confessor is not bound to make such a confession. There is no requirement that the confessor should be administered with such caution on every day the officer meets him. It is enough that the caution is administered before the accused made the confessional statement. (Para 9)

       Learned senior counsel for the appellant then made an endeavour to show that PW-4 had only copied the statement prepared by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and secured the signature of the appellant thereon. We do not have any material to think that PW-4 did so as contended by the learned counsel. (Para 12)

       We have to bear in mind the answer given by the appellant to a question put by the trial judge during examination under Section 313 of the Code after bringing his attention to Ex. PW-4/B. That document is dated 18.4.1995 and it shows that appellant gave his consent to make a confessional statement before the senior officer. Appellant owned Ext. PW-4/B though he explained that he signed it at the instance of the Investigating Officer. This means, appellant was told in advance about the possibility of recording his confession. He never had any complaint that he was physically or even mentally tortured by the police at any time. He thought of retracting from the confession only during trial of the case and not at any previous stage. (Para 13)

       Held consequently : From all the above broad circumstances, we are inclined to believe that confession was voluntarily made by him. The seizure of the stickers and other materials from his house would only lend assurance to the court that the confession contained only the truth. We do not find any good reason to upset the conviction passed by the designated court under TADA. We, therefore, confirm the conviction. We need not vox our mind about the quantum of sentence because, as pointed out earlier, appellant has already undergone the period of imprisonment covered by the sentence. In the result, we dismiss this appeal. (Paras 14, 15 & 16)