1996 JTR(SC) 1968
1997 1 AICLR 189 ; 1997 34 AllCriC 224 ; 1996 4 Crimes(SC) 209 ; 1997 CriR(SC) 281 ; 1997 1 EastCrC(SC) 255 ; 1996 10 JT 792 ; 1996 8 Scale 503 ; 1996 11 SCC 61 ; 1997 SCC(Cri) 47 ; 1996 Supp9 SCR 53 ; 1996 8 Supreme 334
1996(8) Supreme 334
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Ahmad Umar Saeed Sheikh -Appellant
versus
State of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 680 of 1996
Decided on 21-11-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : G. Ramaswamy, K.M.M. Khan, W.A. Ansari, Shuyab Arshi, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent : T.N. Singh, A.S. Pundir, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
FIR recorded even before prior approval of Superintendent of Police as required u/s 20A of TADA for offences not only under TADA but also offences under Indian Penal Code suffers no illegality.
Act
Referred
:INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.427, S.332, S.307
TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT : S.4, S.3, S.20(a)(1), S.20(a)(2)
(A) The appeal pertains to the framing of charges under Sections 307, 332 and 427 IPC, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The investigation was initiated through a First Information Report that contained offences both under the Indian Penal Code and TADA. Section 20A(1) of TADA mandates prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police for lodging any information or recording of an offence under TADA, and Section 20A(2) requires sanction for filing a chargesheet. The impugned F.I.R. was lodged without such approval, and later, during investigation, a prayer was made to add TADA sections, which was granted, followed by submission of a chargesheet with the requisite sanction.
(B) Key legal principles include that an F.I.R. which contains both TADA and non-TADA offences cannot be struck down entirely for non-compliance with TADAs prior approval requirement, as the non-TADA portions remain investigable. Compliance with Section 20A is essential for TADA-specific allegations, and subsequent ratification through the approval and chargesheet process can validate the proceedings.
Facts of the case:
An F.I.R. was registered by a Sub-Inspector of Police containing offences punishable under Sections 332, 307 and 427 IPC, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of TADA. No prior approval under Section 20A(1) was obtained at that stage. Subsequently, the investigating agency sought and obtained approval to add Sections 3 and 4 of TADA, completed the investigation, and filed a chargesheet with sanction under Section 20A(2).
Findings of Court:
The court found that the absence of prior approval at the time of lodging the F.I.R. disentitled the agency to investigate the TADA-related offences but did not negate its right to investigate the non-TADA offences. Since the F.I.R. also contained non-TADA allegations, it was not non-est. The court also observed that the investigation complied with Sections 20A(1) and 20A(2) after the requisite approval was obtained and the chargesheet was filed with sanction, rendering the charges not liable to be quashed.
Issues:
Whether the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed on the ground that the F.I.R. was lodged in breach of Section 20A(1) of TADA, and whether the subsequent approval and chargesheet cure the infirmity.
Ratio Decidendi:
Non-compliance with Section 20A(1) of TADA at the time of lodging an F.I.R. that contains both TADA and non-TADA offences does not render the entire proceeding void, provided the investigation into TADA offences is conducted after obtaining the required approval and the chargesheet is filed with the necessary sanction, as in this case.
Result:
Appeal allowed; charges are not quashed.
(A) The appeal pertains to the framing of charges under Sections 307, 332 and 427 IPC, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The investigation was initiated through a First Information Report that contained offences both under the Indian Penal Code and TADA. Section 20A(1) of TADA mandates prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police for lodging any information or recording of an offence under TADA, and Section 20A(2) requires sanction for filing a chargesheet. The impugned F.I.R. was lodged without such approval, and later, during investigation, a prayer was made to add TADA sections, which was granted, followed by submission of a chargesheet with the requisite sanction.
(B) Key legal principles include that an F.I.R. which contains both TADA and non-TADA offences cannot be struck down entirely for non-compliance with TADAs prior approval requirement, as the non-TADA portions remain investigable. Compliance with Section 20A is essential for TADA-specific allegations, and subsequent ratification through the approval and chargesheet process can validate the proceedings.
Facts of the case:
An F.I.R. was registered by a Sub-Inspector of Police containing offences punishable under Sections 332, 307 and 427 IPC, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of TADA. No prior approval under Section 20A(1) was obtained at that stage. Subsequently, the investigating agency sought and obtained approval to add Sections 3 and 4 of TADA, completed the investigation, and filed a chargesheet with sanction under Section 20A(2).
Findings of Court:
The court found that the absence of prior approval at the time of lodging the F.I.R. disentitled the agency to investigate the TADA-related offences but did not negate its right to investigate the non-TADA offences. Since the F.I.R. also contained non-TADA allegations, it was not non-est. The court also observed that the investigation complied with Sections 20A(1) and 20A(2) after the requisite approval was obtained and the chargesheet was filed with sanction, rendering the charges not liable to be quashed.
Issues:
Whether the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed on the ground that the F.I.R. was lodged in breach of Section 20A(1) of TADA, and whether the subsequent approval and chargesheet cure the infirmity.
Ratio Decidendi:
Non-compliance with Section 20A(1) of TADA at the time of lodging an F.I.R. that contains both TADA and non-TADA offences does not render the entire proceeding void, provided the investigation into TADA offences is conducted after obtaining the required approval and the chargesheet is filed with the necessary sanction, as in this case.
Result:
Appeal allowed; charges are not quashed.
ORDER
The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant for quashing the charges that have been framed against him by the Designated Judge, Meerut under Sections 307, 332 and 427 IPC, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ( TADA for short).
2. Mr. Ramaswamy, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the entire proceedings 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 20A(1) of TADA, which provides that no information about the commission of an offence 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 our 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.
3. 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 no prior approval of the Superintendent of Police was obtained as required under Section 20A(1) but, as noticed above, the F.I.R. was recorded not only for offences 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 20A(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 or 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.
4. There are certain other facts which required to be noticed at this stage. After the F.I.R. was lodged, the investigating agency made a prayer before the Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad on November 21, 1994 seeking his approval to add 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 20A(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 20A of TADA the impugned charges are not liable to be quashed on the grounds agitated by Mr. Ramaswamy. As no other point was raised in support of this appeal we dismiss the same.
Appeal allowed.
*******