TADA Act and Cognizance: Supreme Court’s Ruling on Invalid Prosecution Due to Non-Compliance

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment concerning the enforcement of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). The case arose from an appeal by the State of Rajasthan, challenging the acquittal of two accused, Mohinuddin Jamal Alvi and Habib Ahmed, by the TADA Court in Ajmer. The convicted individuals, Abre Rehmat Ansari @ Qari and Dr. Mohd. Jalees Ansari, sought to appeal their conviction, arguing that the mandatory legal procedure was not followed during their prosecution, leading to a flawed trial. The main issue at hand was the non-compliance with Section 20A of the TADA Act, which requires the prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police before recording any information about offenses under TADA.

Background of the Case

The appellants, Mohinuddin Jamal Alvi and Habib Ahmed, were acquitted by the TADA Court after being charged under Sections 3(2)(ii), 3(3), and 6(1) of the TADA Act, as well as Section 4A of the Explosive Substances Act. The State of Rajasthan challenged this acquittal in its appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused. On the other hand, the convicted appellants, Abre Rehmat Ansari @ Qari and Dr. Mohd. Jalees Ansari, filed their own appeal against the conviction. Their defense rested on the argument that the prosecution did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 20A of the TADA Act, which caused their trial to be vitiated.

Section 20A of the TADA Act

Section 20A of the TADA Act mandates that no police officer shall record information regarding the commission of an offense under this Act without the prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police (SSP). Furthermore, no court is allowed to take cognizance of such offenses without the prior sanction of the Inspector-General of Police or the Commissioner of Police. The failure to adhere to these provisions was a key argument raised by the appellants in their defense, as they contended that the trial should be invalidated due to the non-compliance with this provision.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Convicts)

• The convicts’ defense counsel, Mr. R.K. Dash, argued that the prosecution’s failure to comply with Section 20A of the TADA Act, which specifies that prior approval from the District Superintendent of Police is required before recording any information regarding TADA offenses, rendered the entire prosecution invalid.
• The counsel further argued that despite the presence of approval from a higher authority (Additional Director General of Police), it was not in compliance with the explicit requirement of the law for the approval to be granted by the District Superintendent of Police.
• Mr. Dash emphasized that the non-compliance with this statutory provision was sufficient to vitiate the trial, as held in the previous judgment of this Court in the case of Hussein Ghadially @ M.H.G.A.Shaikh & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat (2014). In that case, it was established that the requirement of prior approval must be strictly followed, regardless of the rank of the approving officer.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Rajasthan)

• The State’s counsel argued that the approval was given by a higher officer (Additional Director General of Police), which should suffice in this case, given the exigencies of the situation.
• The State contended that the trial court’s acquittal of the accused was flawed, as there was ample evidence to support the conviction, and the non-compliance with the Section 20A procedural requirement should not invalidate the entire case.
• The respondent further argued that the higher authorities had evaluated the situation and given their approval, and the trial court erred in interpreting the provisions of TADA too rigidly.

The Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, noted the importance of complying with the procedural requirements set forth in Section 20A of the TADA Act. The Court emphasized that the legislature had specifically designated the District Superintendent of Police (SSP) as the authority responsible for approving the recording of information under TADA. The Court noted that any deviation from this statutory requirement, even if done by a superior officer, would render the prosecution invalid.

The Court also referred to the earlier decision in the case of Hussein Ghadially @ M.H.G.A.Shaikh & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat (2014), where it was clarified that approval from an officer other than the designated District Superintendent of Police would not be valid, and such a failure to comply would render the trial vitiated. The Court also discussed the legal principle that when a statute mandates a specific procedure, it must be followed in the exact manner prescribed, and any departure from that procedure is legally impermissible.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

Based on the arguments presented and the legal precedents cited, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution against the appellants was invalid due to the non-compliance with Section 20A of the TADA Act. The Court found that the prior approval required under the Act was not obtained from the designated authority, the District Superintendent of Police. As a result, the Court quashed the conviction of the two appellants, Abre Rehmat Ansari @ Qari and Dr. Mohd. Jalees Ansari.

The Court further clarified that the trial was vitiated on this ground alone, and the failure to follow the mandatory procedure was sufficient to quash the conviction, irrespective of the other evidence in the case. The appeals filed by the convicted persons were allowed, and their conviction was set aside. The appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan were dismissed.

Conclusion

This case highlights the critical importance of adhering to procedural requirements under the law, especially in cases involving special statutes like TADA. The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the principle that no matter how compelling the evidence may be, the failure to comply with mandatory legal procedures can render a trial invalid. This ruling strengthens the safeguards against wrongful convictions and ensures that the rights of the accused are protected in accordance with the law. Furthermore, it reinforces the Court’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process by upholding legal formalities and statutory requirements.

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

Download Judgment: Mohinuddin Jamal Alv vs State of Rajasthan Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-05-2016-1741860846191.pdf