TADA prosecution quashed as section 20A(1) prior approval invalid; State failed to apply mind; refiling permitted

SC held the TADA prosecution was invalid because the statutory prior approval required by section 20A(1) was neither properly exercised by the DSP nor independently considered by the State, rendering the sanction vitiated and the TADA proceedings quashed. The court found the DSP's approval was externally dictated and the State failed to apply proper mind before consenting. The court permitted respondents to reinitiate TADA proceedings lawfully if they comply with requirements. On the Arms Act charge, bail was not opposed; the two appellants were ordered released on bail on furnishing bonds of Rs.10,000 with one surety each.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of invocation of TADA.
2. Grant of bail to the appellants.

Summary:

1. Legality of Invocation of TADA:
The appellants were accused of offences u/s 3 and 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The Supreme Court focused on the sole ground of the wrong invocation of TADA. According to Section 20-A of TADA, prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police (DSP) is required for recording any information about the commission of an offence under TADA, and no court shall take cognizance of any offence under TADA without the previous sanction of the Inspector-General of Police or the Commissioner of Police.

In this case, the DSP did not exercise his jurisdiction u/s 20A(1) and instead referred the matter to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, requesting permission to invoke TADA. The Additional Chief Secretary granted the sanction on 18th March 1995 based on a FAX message from the DSP. The Supreme Court found that the DSP had abdicated his jurisdiction and the sanction was given without proper application of mind, thus vitiating the entire proceeding under TADA.

2. Grant of Bail to the Appellants:
The appellants were initially arrested and produced before the Executive Magistrate on allegations u/s 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act. Their bail application was rejected by the Designated Court, leading to this appeal. The Supreme Court ordered the release of the appellants on bail, noting that no contention was advanced to deny bail for the offence under the Arms Act. The appellants were required to furnish a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety and adhere to conditions such as making themselves available for police interrogation, not influencing witnesses, and not leaving the State of Gujarat without permission.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings under TADA due to the lack of proper jurisdictional exercise and application of mind by the authorities. The appellants were granted bail with specific conditions. The appeal was allowed accordingly.

---