https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169230 Sanction for prosecution under Section 20A(2) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was held invalid because the competent authority acted mechanically on an FIR and brief request letter without a conscious application of mind; cognizance and trial under the Act therefore failed. The Designated Court's power to try connected offences under Section 12 was incidental to a valid prosecution under the Act, so once the foundational sanction was ineffective, the conviction under the Arms Act, 1959 could not be sustained on the same proceedings. The convictions and sentences were set aside, with liberty to pursue a fresh prosecution on lawful sanction. en-us Wed, 06 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Apr 2015 18:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169230 Sanction for prosecution under Section 20A(2) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was held invalid because the competent authority acted mechanically on an FIR and brief request letter without a conscious application of mind; cognizance and trial under the Act therefore failed. The Designated Court's power to try connected offences under Section 12 was incidental to a valid prosecution under the Act, so once the foundational sanction was ineffective, the conviction under the Arms Act, 1959 could not be sustained on the same proceedings. The convictions and sentences were set aside, with liberty to pursue a fresh prosecution on lawful sanction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169230