SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- K.T. Thomas and R.P. Sethi, JJ.

Crl. A. Nos. 2010-2013 of 1996. D/d. 17.04.2001.

State of A.P. - Appellants

Versus

Mohd. Shamsuddin & Ors. - Respondents

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 Section 20A Sanction for prosecution - Validity - Court found that no valid sanction had been accorded by Commissioner of Police-cum-Additional District Magistrate - Court Prima facie feels that the then Commissioner of Police-cum-additional District Magistrate exercised his power under Section 20A in a very causal manner - Notice issued to then Police-cum-Additional District to show cause why adverse marks be not taken against him.

[Paras 1, 3 and 4]

JUDGMENT

1. A large number of accused were arrayed before a designated court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) for offences under Section 3 and 5 of TADA besides other offences. When the accused persons raised the question of want of sanction under Section 20A of the Act the judge of the designated court examined the validity of the sanction and found that no valid sanction had been accorded by the commissioner of Police-cum-Addl. District Magistrate, Hyderabad as per the proceedings dated 7.9.1994. Accordingly the judge of the designated court ordered that the TADA Court has no jurisdiction to try the offences. The impugned order was passed pursuant thereto.

2. Today when we heard learned counsel for the State of A.P. for some time we wanted to know the proceedings by which sanction under Section 20A had been granted. The sanctioning authority said that "After perusing the entire file. I am satisfied that the above accused committed offence under explosive substance Act and it is a fit case for Prosecution." After saying so he ordered thus:-

"In exercise the powers conferred upon me vide reference 3rd cited I hereby accord permission to the Inspector of Police East Zone Team I C.C.S. to Prosecute the above accused in the above ' crime. Under section 20(aX2) of TADA Act, 39 of I.A. act and 7 of E.S. Act."

3. Prima facie we feel that Mr. HJ Dora, the then Commissioner of Police-cum-Addl. District Magistrate, Hyderabad who passed the said proceedings exercised his power under Section 20A in a very casual manner.

4. Issue notice to Mr. HJ Dora returnable within two weeks to show cause why we shall not make adverse remarks against him in the judgment by which this appeal is to be disposed of.

5. The Registry will send notice addressed to him to the Chief Secretary of the State of A.P. who will make arrangements for service of this notice on the aforesaid person.

6. List on 1.5.2001.

-RESULT .