https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172331 Prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police under Section 20-A(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act was treated as a mandatory precondition before information about the offence was first recorded by police. Because the record did not establish that written or oral approval existed at the inception of the case, the FIR was legally infirm and the defect could not be cured by later investigation. On that basis, the FIR and all subsequent proceedings founded on it were held vitiated, and the conviction was set aside. en-us Fri, 20 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172331 Prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police under Section 20-A(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act was treated as a mandatory precondition before information about the offence was first recorded by police. Because the record did not establish that written or oral approval existed at the inception of the case, the FIR was legally infirm and the defect could not be cured by later investigation. On that basis, the FIR and all subsequent proceedings founded on it were held vitiated, and the conviction was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172331