Conviction and Sentence Overturned, Accused Acquitted

RAMBHAI NATHABHAI GADHVI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

RAMBHAI NATHABHAI GADHVI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - 1997 AIR 3475, 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 356, 1997 (7) SCC 744, 1997 (7) JT 290, 1997 (5) SCALE 388 Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Sanction u/s 20A(2) of TADA.
2. Conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

Summary:

Validity of the Sanction u/s 20A(2) of TADA:
The appellants challenged the validity of the sanction u/s 20A(2) of TADA, arguing that the evidence presented by the prosecution was unrealistic and unreliable. The court emphasized that a valid sanction is a sine qua non for enabling the prosecuting agency to approach the court. The sanction relied upon by the prosecution (Ext. 63) was issued by the Director General of Police, Ahmedabad, based on the FIR and a letter from the Superintendent of Police. The court found that the Director General of Police did not apply his mind effectively, as he only had skeletal facts before him and did not call for any additional documents or discussions. The court concluded that Ext. 63 was not a valid sanction but merely a permission to add sections of TADA, thus rendering the entire trial vitiated.

Conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act:
The State of Gujarat contended that the court could convict the accused u/s 25 of the Arms Act based on the available evidence. However, the court noted that the trial for the offence under the Arms Act was conducted by the Designated Court under the purported power conferred by Section 12 of TADA. Since the trial for the TADA offence could not have been held for want of valid sanction, the Designated Court had no independent power to try any other offence. Therefore, no conviction u/s 25 of the Arms Act was possible on the materials collected by the Designated Court.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the accused, acquitting them and directing their immediate release unless required in any other case. The court also noted that the State could consider launching a fresh prosecution with valid sanction, taking into account the time already served by the first accused. Criminal Appeal No. 1909 of 1996 was allowed, and Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 1997 was dismissed.