(1) IN this set of appeals, one of the questions raised is whether in terms of Ss. (2 of Section 20-A of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, the court having taken cognizance on a defective sanction order, the trial would vitiate? That there was a sanction order on the basis of which the court took cognizance is beyond dispute. The effort herein is to point out defects therein so as to render it invalid. This question was not raised at the trial. It is being raised here for the first time. We are not prepared to have it raised.

(2) EVEN otherwise, the objection would fail for what is provided under Ss. (3 of Section 14 of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The provision reads as follows:

"14. (3 Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Designated court shall, for the purpose of trial of any offence, have all the powers of a court of Session and shall try such offence as if it were a court of Session as far as may be in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code for the trial before a court of Session."

(3) SINCE for all purposes the Designated court is a court of Session to which the p