Prior sanction as a jurisdictional barred cognizance under TADA and invalidated connected convictions under other statutes.

Prior statutory sanction under TADA was a condition precedent to cognizance, so proceedings taken without sanction were without jurisdiction. Because the Designated Court lacked jurisdiction at the threshold to take cognizance of the principal TADA offence, it could not validly exercise the power to try connected offences under the Explosive Substances Act or the Explosives Act. A trial commenced without jurisdiction was a nullity, and the conviction and sentence recorded for the connected offence could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Designated Court could take cognizance of and try the appellant for offences under TADA without the prior sanction required by Section 20A(2); (ii) Whether, in the absence of jurisdiction to try the TADA offence, the Designated Court could nevertheless convict the appellant for offences under the Explosive Substances Act and the Explosives Act.

Issue (i): Whether the Designated Court could take cognizance of and try the appellant for offences under TADA without the prior sanction required by Section 20A(2).

Analysis: Prior sanction of the Inspector-General of Police or the Commissioner of Police was mandatory before a court could take cognizance of an offence under TADA. The absence of such sanction deprived the Designated Court of jurisdiction to take cognizance and to proceed with the trial under TADA. Sanction was a condition precedent, and proceedings taken without it were without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Designated Court could not validly take cognizance of or try the appellant for TADA offences without the required sanction.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the absence of jurisdiction to try the TADA offence, the Designated Court could nevertheless convict the appellant for offences under the Explosive Substances Act and the Explosives Act.

Analysis: The power of a Designated Court to try connected offences under Section 12 operated only when it was validly trying an offence under TADA. Since the court lacked jurisdiction at the threshold to take cognizance of the TADA offence, it could not assume jurisdiction over connected offences under other statutes. A proceeding commenced without jurisdiction is a nullity, and the absence of jurisdiction to try the principal TADA offence defeated the conviction under the other enactments as well.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and the sentence imposed thereunder were illegal and could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the conviction and sentence were set aside for want of jurisdiction in the Designated Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where prior statutory sanction is a condition precedent to cognizance of the principal offence, a court lacking such jurisdiction cannot validly try connected offences under other statutes, and any conviction so recorded is void.

---