( 1 ) HEARD the parties.

( 2 ) THE sole appellant along with Kaushik Maganlal and Arjun Maruti Kaginkar was tried and by judgment rendered by the Designated Court, while other accused persons were acquitted, the appellant was convicted under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short "the TADA Act") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs 1000, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The appellant was further convicted under Section 25 (l-B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs 500, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. The sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently. Hence this appeal.

( 3 ) THE appeal has got to succeed on a short question, as such it is not necessary to state the facts. Section 20-A (1) of the TADA Act lays down that

( 4 ) NO information about the commission of an offence under this Act shall be recorded by the police without the prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police.

( 5 ) THE que