Ashrafkhan @ Babu Munnekhan Pathan Vs. State of Gujarat
|
Head Note
Criminal Laws - Terrorism
Terrorism - District Superintendent of Police and Inspector General of Police and all others entrusted with the task of operating the law must not do anything which allows its misuse and abuse and ensure that no innocent person has the feeling of sufferance only because "My name is Khan, but I am not a terrorist" - Held - Might induce mournful reflection how an attempt by the investigating agency charged with the duty of preventing terrorism and securing conviction has been frustrated by what is popularly called a technical error. We emphasize and deem it necessary to repeat that the gravity of the evil to the community from terrorism can never furnish an adequate reason for invading the personal liberty, except in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution and the laws.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 120-B , Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 3 , Section 5 , Section 14 , Section 20 , The Arms Act,1959 - Section 7 , Section 25 (1)
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Section 4, 5 and 6 - Jagannath Rath Yatra - Cognizance of offence - Procedure and powers of Designated Courts - Prior Sanction - The conviction of the accused to have been vitiated on account of non-compliance of Section 20-A(1) of TADA and thus, it may be permissible in law to maintain the conviction under the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act but that shall only be possible when there are legally admissible evidence to establish those charges - The Designated Court has only relied on the confessions recorded under TADA to convict the accused for offences under the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act - Their conviction is vitiated on account of non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of prior approval under Section 20-A(1) of TADA, the confessions recorded cannot be looked into to establish the guilt under the aforesaid Acts - Hence, the conviction of the accused under Section 7 and 25(1A) of the Arms Act and Section 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act cannot also be allowed to stand.
Topic(s)-
Important Decision(s)-
- The Designated Court has only relied on the confessions recorded under TADA to convict the accused for offences under the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act.
- Conviction is vitiated on account of non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of prior approval under Section 20-A(1) of TADA, the confessions recorded cannot be looked into to establish the guilt under the aforesaid Acts.