https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195873 Prior approval under Section 20A(1) of TADA was held to require actual prior approval, not necessarily written approval, so an FIR and investigation were not invalid where approval had in fact been obtained. Sanction defects under Section 20A(2), read with Section 465 CrPC, did not vitiate prosecution absent failure of justice. Convictions under Section 3(5) failed because the provision required proof of post-commencement terrorist acts by the gang or organisation. Harbouring under Section 3(4) required mens rea, and a company could not be convicted without a statutory basis for juristic liability. Co-accused confessions were not substantive evidence against another accused unless tried jointly for the same offence. en-us Thu, 06 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Nov 2017 17:09:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195873 Prior approval under Section 20A(1) of TADA was held to require actual prior approval, not necessarily written approval, so an FIR and investigation were not invalid where approval had in fact been obtained. Sanction defects under Section 20A(2), read with Section 465 CrPC, did not vitiate prosecution absent failure of justice. Convictions under Section 3(5) failed because the provision required proof of post-commencement terrorist acts by the gang or organisation. Harbouring under Section 3(4) required mens rea, and a company could not be convicted without a statutory basis for juristic liability. Co-accused confessions were not substantive evidence against another accused unless tried jointly for the same offence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195873