Back
B. N. AGARWAL, H. K. SEMA, G. P. MATHUR, P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto And Abdulwahab Abdulmajid Shaikh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment holds that confessional statements recorded under Section 15 remain admissible for offences under any other law that were tried along with TADA offences under Section 12, even if the accused is acquitted under TADA (Para 39; p_39; p_63; p_66). - Section 12 authorizes Designated Courts to try TADA offences along with other offences connected to them and, if the accused is found guilty of other offences, to convict and sentence accordingly (Paras 12-15; p_100; p_115; p_116). - The two sections must be read together; Section 12 enables joint trial and potential conviction for connected offences; Section 15 governs admissibility of confessions and has overriding effect over CrPC/Evidence Act for TADA-related trials (Paras 32-36; p_32; p_101; p_103). - Nalini’s decision (three-Judge Bench) is affirmed as correct, establishing the above interplay between Sections 12 and 15 (Paras 61-69; p_61; p_69). - Section 18 deals with transferring cases to regular courts when not triable by the Designated Court, clarifying the stage at which transfer occurs (Paras 120-123; p_121; p_122). - The Court emphasizes procedural safeguards and guidelines for recording confessions to prevent torture and ensure fairness, including language, production before magistrates, medical examination if needed, and rank restrictions on investigating officers (Paras 26-36; p_26; p_31; p_32; p_34; p_35; p_36).
Judgment
H.K. Sema, J.—All these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 19th March, 2001 passed by the Designated Court No. 3 at Ahmedabad in Terrorist Case No. 2 of 1997, Terrorist Case No. 33 of 1994 and Terrorist Case No. 16 of 1995. The two-Judge bench before whom these appeals were posted for hearing referred the matters to a three-Judge Bench by an order dated 24.9.2002. The said Order reads as under:—
“The issue involved concerns the admissibility of a confession in terms of Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short “TADA Act”). Consequently, therefore, the other provisions as contained in Sections 12 and 18 have to be read in order to assess the legislative intent therein.
This Court in State v. Nalini, 1999(5) SCC 253, in paragraphs 80 and 81 stated the law to be as below :—
“80. Section 12 of TADA enables the Designated Court to jointly try, at the same trial, any offence under TADA together with any other offence “with which the accused may be charged” as per the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (2) thereof empowers the Designated Court to convict the accused, in such a trial, of any offence “under any ot
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
