Mandatory statutory approval requirement under TADA could not be bypassed, and the prosecution failed without reliable independent evidence.

Prior approval by the specifically designated authority under Section 20-A(1) of TADA was mandatory because the provision was framed in negative terms with a non obstante clause. Approval by the State Government or an Additional Police Commissioner could not substitute the statutory requirement, as the prescribed authority had to exercise the power independently and only in the manner laid down by the statute. The defect was treated as going to the root of the prosecution and was not curable under Section 465 CrPC. The attempt to sustain the convictions on IPC and the Explosive Substances Act alone also failed because the record did not contain sufficient reliable evidence apart from the TADA-based material.

---

---

Issues: Whether the absence of prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police under Section 20-A(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 vitiated the recording of information, the subsequent trial and the conviction, and whether the convictions could nevertheless be sustained under the IPC and the Explosive Substances Act.

Analysis: Section 20-A(1) is couched in negative form and begins with a non obstante clause, showing that prior approval by the specifically designated authority is mandatory. The power could not validly be exercised by the State Government or by the Additional Police Commissioner, because a statutory authority must exercise the jurisdiction vested in it independently and the prescribed manner alone must be followed. The defect went to the root of the matter and was not cured by Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The alternative submission that the convictions could be sustained independently of TADA was rejected because the record did not disclose sufficient reliable evidence to support such convictions without reliance on the TADA-based material.

Conclusion: The absence of approval under Section 20-A(1) invalidated the TADA-based prosecution and the convictions could not be sustained on the remaining material.

Final Conclusion: The convictions of the appellants were set aside and they were directed to be released, while the State appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute vests a power in a specifically designated authority and uses prohibitory language, that power must be exercised only by that authority in the manner prescribed, and non-compliance with such a mandatory precondition vitiates the resulting prosecution and conviction.

---