Mandatory prior approval under TADA was a condition precedent; absence of it vitiated the prosecution and related convictions.

Prior approval by the District Superintendent of Police under Section 20-A(1) of TADA was a mandatory condition precedent to recording information about an offence under the special statute. The claimed approval was not proved, and approval by other officers or later police hierarchy could not cure the defect; the omission went to the root of the prosecution and was not saved by Section 465 CrPC. Because the TADA prosecution was unsustainable, confessions recorded in that proceeding could not support convictions under the Arms Act or the Explosive Substances Act. The convictions and sentences were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) 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 vitiated the registration of the case and the conviction. (ii) Whether the convictions under the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act could survive despite non-compliance with Section 20-A(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act.

Issue (i): 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 vitiated the registration of the case and the conviction.

Analysis: The statutory scheme made prior approval by the District Superintendent of Police a condition precedent to recording information about an offence under the Act. The requirement was held to be mandatory, because the provision used negative language and formed an express safeguard against misuse of the special statute. On the evidence, the claimed prior approval was not proved. Approval by the Additional Chief Secretary or later approval by the police hierarchy could not substitute the approval required by Section 20-A(1). The defect was held to go to the root of the prosecution and was not curable under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The absence of prior approval under Section 20-A(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act vitiated the prosecution and the conviction.

Issue (ii): Whether the convictions under the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act could survive despite non-compliance with Section 20-A(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act.

Analysis: The convictions under the other penal statutes were founded on confessions recorded in the course of the TADA prosecution. Once the TADA conviction was held unsustainable for breach of the mandatory approval requirement, those confessions could not be relied upon to sustain guilt under the Arms Act or the Explosive Substances Act. The special safeguards under the TADA framework operated independently, and failure to satisfy them undermined the evidentiary basis for the connected convictions as well.

Conclusion: The convictions under the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act also could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The convictions and sentences of the accused were set aside, and the State's appeals against acquittal and inadequacy of sentence were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute requires prior approval of a designated authority before registration of an offence, that approval is mandatory and a condition precedent; its absence vitiates the prosecution and any connected conviction resting on the tainted proceedings cannot be saved by later or higher-level sanction.

---