AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3475 ::1997 AIR SCW 3565 ::1997 CriAppR(SC) 293 ::(1997) 2 MadLW(Cri) 681 ::1997 (3) CurCriR 80 ::1997 CriLR(SC&MP) 563 ::1997 (7) SCC 744 ::1997 SCC(Cri) 1169 ::1997 (3) RecCriR 11 ::1997 (5) Scale 388 ::1997 (3) AllCriLR 801 ::1998 (1) GujLR 506 ::1997 (2) GujLH 734 ::(1997) 3 SCJ 193 ::1997 (3) Crimes 154 ::1997 (7) Supreme 228 ::(1998) SC Cr R 146 ::(1997) 7 JT 290 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): A. S. Anand, K. T. Thomas , JJ

(A) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (28 of 1987) , S.20A(2)— Sanction for prosecution - Validity - Only two documents available before Director General of Police while according sanction, one being FIR and other being application by Superintendent of Police seeking sanction narrating some facts - No other document relating to investigation or copy thereof produced before Director General - Held, sanction was not valid being passed without application of mind. As the provisions of TADA are more rigorous and the penalty provided is more stringent and the procedure for trial prescribed is summary and compendious, the sanctioning process mentioned in Section 20-A (2) must have been adopted more seriously and exhaustively than the sanction contemplated in other penal statutes. If there was no valid sanction the Designated Court gets no jurisdiction to try a case against any person mentioned in the report as the court is forbidden from taking cognizance of the offence without such sanction. If the Designated Court has taken cognizance of the offence without a valid sanction, such action is without jurisdiction and any proceedings adopted thereunder will also be without jurisdiction.(Para 8 11) Where the alleged sanction for prosecution under S. 20-A (2) by the Director General of Police showe....