Acquittal in TADA Case: Supreme Court Affirms Due Process in Terrorism Charges

The case of The State of Gujarat vs. Anwar Osman Sumbhaniya & Ors. deals with a crucial issue in the application of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The Supreme Court had to determine whether the acquittal of the accused by the Special TADA Court in Jamnagar was justified, particularly in light of procedural lapses concerning prior approval and sanction required under TADA.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural safeguards in prosecuting offenses under anti-terror laws and reiterates that failure to comply with statutory requirements can render a prosecution invalid. The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal, ruling that the absence of valid sanctions under TADA meant that the accused could not be legally tried for those offenses.

Background of the Case

The respondents in this case were charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), TADA, the Arms Act, the Indian Telegraph Act, and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act. The prosecution alleged that they were in possession of foreign-made firearms and communication devices and had conspired to commit acts against the Indian government.

The case originated from a complaint filed by a police officer based on intelligence that one of the respondents, Anwar Osman Sumbhaniya, was storing illegal firearms at his residence. A raid was conducted, resulting in the recovery of weapons and communication devices, following which charges were filed.

Charges Against the Accused

The accused were charged with the following offenses:

• Under IPC: Sections 121, 121A, and 122 for waging war against the state.
• Under TADA: Sections 3, 4, and 5 for possession of arms and involvement in terrorist activities.
• Under the Arms Act: Various sections for unlawful possession of firearms.
• Under the Indian Telegraph and Wireless Telegraphy Acts: Possession of unauthorized communication devices.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The State of Gujarat, through the prosecution, argued:

• The accused were part of a conspiracy to commit terrorist acts and had illegally procured and stored arms.
• There was credible evidence, including confessions and physical recoveries, linking them to the alleged offenses.
• The trial court erred in rejecting the evidence on procedural grounds and should have convicted the accused.
• Even if the TADA charges were invalid, the accused should have been convicted under the IPC and the Arms Act.

Respondent’s Arguments

The defense countered:

• The prosecution failed to obtain the mandatory prior approval and sanction required under Section 20-A of TADA.
• The confessions obtained under TADA were inadmissible due to procedural lapses.
• The search and seizure process was flawed, with discrepancies in documentation.
• The allegations were politically motivated, and there was no credible evidence linking the accused to terrorist activities.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court closely examined the procedural aspects of the case. Key observations included:

“The necessity of obtaining prior sanction under Section 20-A(2) of TADA cannot be overlooked, given the draconian nature of the Act.”

The Court highlighted that the approval and sanction granted by the authorities were flawed and that without valid sanction, the prosecution could not legally proceed under TADA.

“The sanction order is not the result of a serious consideration and reflects scant application of mind by the sanctioning authority.”

The Court also noted that the prosecution had relied heavily on confessions obtained under TADA, which could not be considered once the TADA charges were invalidated.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The trial court was correct in holding that the prosecution under TADA was invalid due to lack of valid sanction.
• Since the case was primarily built on confessions obtained under TADA, those confessions could not be used to convict the accused under other laws.
• The prosecution had not presented independent, legally admissible evidence to sustain charges under the IPC or the Arms Act.
• The appeals were dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused was upheld.

Conclusion

This judgment reaffirms that procedural safeguards in criminal trials, especially under special laws like TADA, must be strictly followed. The ruling underscores that lapses in obtaining proper sanction can render a prosecution invalid and that courts must ensure due process is upheld in all criminal cases.

Petitioner Name: The State of Gujarat.
Respondent Name: Anwar Osman Sumbhaniya & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Jamnagar, Gujarat.
Judgment Date: 27-02-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: The State of Gujarat vs Anwar Osman Sumbhani Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 27-02-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Terrorist Activities
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Ajay Rastogi
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category