Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court arrived at a decision in an appeal filed by the state against the decision of the Designated TADA Court. The Apex Court held that the confession recorded as per the provisions of the TADA Act was not admissible evidence for convicting the accused for other offences that fall under any other enactment, especially when the Designated TADA Court had not taken cognizance of such other offences.
Further, since there was neither prior approval nor prior sanction as per section 20A(i) and Section 20-A(2) of the TADA Act, the Designated TADA Court set the accused free. The Court said there was no conformity to the provisions of the TADA act, and the state appealed against this order before the Supreme Court.
The Hon’ble Bench of the Apex Court comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi could not find any reason on the application of section 4 and 5 of the said act in the instant case. According to the court, mere possession of walky-talky does not fall in the circle of classified arms and ammunition, possession of which is unauthorized as per section 5 of the act. Section 4 refers to disruptive activities. The Court said that the purported sanction Exh.57 also suffers from the non-application of mind.
The accused had been charged with several other offences under several other acts which were Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, Indian Telegraph Act, Indian Wireless and Telegraphy Act. The Designated TADA Court held onto its stance that it had no jurisdiction to try any other offence under any other enactment in the absence of valid sanction under section 20(a) of the act. However, the Supreme Court held that the Designated Court could try offences under other enactments in the same trial provided that such offences had nexus with the offences under the TADA Act. Therefore, the Designated TADA Act has been given the power to convict the accused for any other offence under any other enactment when there is legally admissible evidence to establish such charges.
The Bench concluded stating that the confession was futile in the trial since it was obtained for the offence under the TADA Act, and it was certainly not admissible for any other offence under any other enactment where there was no cognizance taken by the Designated Court. Further, the evidence obtained through search and seizure was filled with deficiencies. Consequently, the apex court upheld the decision of the Designated TADA Court.
86540
103860
630
114
59824