TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court stresses prior approval under Section 20A TADA Act; non-compliance invalidates trial. Convictions set aside, individuals to be released.</h1> <h3>STATE OF RAJASTHAN Versus MOHINUDDIN JAMAL ALVI & ANR.</h3> STATE OF RAJASTHAN Versus MOHINUDDIN JAMAL ALVI & ANR. - 2016 AIR 2386, 2016 (5) JT 214, Issues:Appeal against acquittal under TADA Act, Compliance with Section 20A of TADA Act for prior approval of District Superintendent of Police, Interpretation of statutory provisions, Impact of prior approval on trial validity.Analysis:The judgment involves appeals arising from a common judgment by the Designated Court for Rajasthan under the TADA Act and Explosive Substances Act. Two accused were acquitted, while two were convicted. The convicted individuals challenged their conviction based on non-compliance with Section 20A of the TADA Act, which requires prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police for recording offenses under TADA. The defense argued that non-compliance with this mandatory provision rendered the prosecution invalid.The Court focused on the requirement of prior approval by the District Superintendent of Police under Section 20A of the TADA Act. It emphasized that the approval must be granted by the designated authority specified in the statute and cannot be substituted by a higher-ranking officer. Citing precedents, the Court reiterated that the power of approval cannot be exercised by any authority other than the District Superintendent of Police, as mandated by law.The judgment referred to a previous case to emphasize the importance of the designated authority exercising its discretion independently without external influence. It highlighted that failure to obtain prior approval from the designated authority, as required by law, would invalidate the proceedings. The Court clarified that even if one violation of the statutory provision is found, it is sufficient to vitiate the trial under TADA.The Court rejected the argument that non-compliance with both aspects of Section 20A and the State Government's independent assessment were required to invalidate the trial. It held that the absence of prior approval from the District Superintendent of Police alone was enough to vitiate the trial. Consequently, the appeals filed by the convicted individuals were allowed, setting aside their convictions, while the State's appeals were dismissed. The convicted individuals were ordered to be released immediately if not required in any other case.
TaxTMI 