Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
AHMAD UMAR SAEED SHEIKH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/11/1996
BENCH:
M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant for
quashing the charges that have framed against him by the
Designated Judge, Meerut under Sections Act and Sections 3
and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 198/ ("TADA’ for short)"
Mr. Ramaswamy, the learned counsel for the appellant,
submitted that the entire proceedings initiated against the
appellant, including the charges, initiated against the
appellant, including the charges, were liable to be quashed
as the First Information Report, which ultimately culminated
in the impugned proceedings against the appellant, was
lodged in utter breach of Section 20 A (1) of TADA, which
provides that no information about the commission of an of
fence under TADA shall be recorded by the police without the
prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police. To
bring home his contention he has drawn on attention to the
F.I.R. that was recorded on the complaint of a Sub Inspector
of Police for offences punishable under Sections 332, 307
and 427 IPC, 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and
Sections 3 and 4 of TADA.
After having given our anxious consideration to the
above contention of Mr. Ramaswamy we are unable to accept
the same. it is of course true that when the above F.I.R.
was recorded not only for of fences under TADA but also for
offences under the Indian Penal Code for commission of which
the concerned police officer was competent to lodge an
F.I.R. without such approval. The absence of approval of
District Superintendent of Police as required under Section
20 A (1) of TADA at that stage only disentitled the
investigating agency to investigate into the offences
relating to TADA but it had a statutory right to investigate
into the other offences alleged in the F.I.R. If the F.I.R.
was lodged only for commission of offences under TADA we
might have persuaded ourselves to accept the contention of
Mr. Ramaswamy, but there being allegation of other offences
therein it cannot be said that the F.I.R. so far as it
sought investigation of these offences was non-est.
There are certain other facts which required to be
noticed at this stage. After the F.I.R was lodged, the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
investigating agency made a prayer before the Superintendent
of Police, Ghaziabad on November 21, 1994 seeking his
approval to and Sections 3 and 4 of TADA on the ground that
during investigation the involvement of the appellant in
commission of such offences was revealed. The approval
sought for was granted and thereafter on completion of
investigation chargesheet was submitted with the sanction of
the concerned authority as required under Section of the
concerned authority as required under Section 20 A (2) of
TADA. Since the above steps taken by the Investigating
Agency are in conformity with the provisions of both sub-
sections (1) & (2) of Section 20 a of TADA the impugned
charges are not liable to be quashed on the grounds agitated
by Mr. Ramaswamy. As on other point was raised in support of
this appeal we dismiss the same.