https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172406 Prior approval by the specifically designated authority under Section 20-A(1) of TADA was mandatory because the provision was framed in negative terms with a non obstante clause. Approval by the State Government or an Additional Police Commissioner could not substitute the statutory requirement, as the prescribed authority had to exercise the power independently and only in the manner laid down by the statute. The defect was treated as going to the root of the prosecution and was not curable under Section 465 CrPC. The attempt to sustain the convictions on IPC and the Explosive Substances Act alone also failed because the record did not contain sufficient reliable evidence apart from the TADA-based material. en-us Fri, 18 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:04:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172406 Prior approval by the specifically designated authority under Section 20-A(1) of TADA was mandatory because the provision was framed in negative terms with a non obstante clause. Approval by the State Government or an Additional Police Commissioner could not substitute the statutory requirement, as the prescribed authority had to exercise the power independently and only in the manner laid down by the statute. The defect was treated as going to the root of the prosecution and was not curable under Section 465 CrPC. The attempt to sustain the convictions on IPC and the Explosive Substances Act alone also failed because the record did not contain sufficient reliable evidence apart from the TADA-based material. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172406