https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282929 The Supreme Court reiterated that Article 226 writ jurisdiction should not be used to quash a prosecution under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 unless the accusation, even on its face, cannot constitute an offence under the special Act. Because the applicability of the statute was debatable and the Act provided an express appellate remedy, the accused had to pursue the statutory forum rather than seek merits review in writ proceedings. The Court also held that the chargesheet was not confined to recovery of arms alone: the surrounding allegations of concealment, association with other accused, and smuggling conspiracy could attract the special Act, so the High Court's contrary view was unsustainable. en-us Mon, 21 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Aug 2019 11:33:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282929 The Supreme Court reiterated that Article 226 writ jurisdiction should not be used to quash a prosecution under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 unless the accusation, even on its face, cannot constitute an offence under the special Act. Because the applicability of the statute was debatable and the Act provided an express appellate remedy, the accused had to pursue the statutory forum rather than seek merits review in writ proceedings. The Court also held that the chargesheet was not confined to recovery of arms alone: the surrounding allegations of concealment, association with other accused, and smuggling conspiracy could attract the special Act, so the High Court's contrary view was unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 21 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282929