Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto v. State of Gujarat, (SC) BS81539
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Large Bench)

Before:- R.C. Lahoti, CJI, B.N. Agrawal, H.K. Sema, G.P. Mathur and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 526 of 2001. D/d. 12.1.2005.

Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto - Appellant

Versus

State of Gujarat - Respondent

WITH

Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 2001

Abdulwahab Abdulmajid Shaikh & Ors. - Appellants

Versus

State of Gujarat - Respondent

AND

Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2001

Musa Khan @ Baba Khan - Appellant

Versus

State of Gujarat - Respondent

For the Appellant in Crl.A. No. 526/2001 :- Manish Singhvi, Saurabh Ajay and Ashok K. Mahajan, Advocates.

For the Appellant in Crl.A. No. 545/2001 :- Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Adolf Mathew, Puneet Rai, Vinay Arora and Sanjay Jain, Advocates.

For the Appellant in Crl.A. No. 665/2001 :- Ms. Asha G. Nair and Ms. Anu Mohla, Advocates.

For the Respondent :- Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Hemantika Wahi and Ms. Aruna Gupta, Advocates.

IMPORTANT

Confessional statement recorded under Section 15 of TADA would continue to remain admissible for other offences which too were tried along with TADA offences.

A. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 15 - Confessional statement recorded under Section 15 of TADA would continue to remain admissible as for the other offences under any other law which too were tried along with TADA offences, no matter that the accused was acquitted of offences under TADA in that trial. 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 682 (SC) approved.

[Paras 17, 18 and 40]

B. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 12 - Section 12 empowers the Designated Court to try and convict the accused for offences committed under any other law along with offences committed under the Act, if the offence is connected with such other offence - This is despite the fact that no offence under TADA is made out.

[Paras 33, 35 to 38]

C. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Sections 18 and 12 - Police investigating and submitting charge-sheet in the Designated Court - If Designated Court is of opinion that it has no jurisdiction to try the offence then it shall transfer the case to court having jurisdiction at the stage of taking cognizance - Contention that the Designated Court could transfer at stage of trial is not tenable.

[Paras 40 to 42]

D. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 12 - TADA - The persons who are tried for offences specified under the provisions of TADA are a distinct class of persons and the procedure prescribed for trying them for the aggravated and incensed nature of offences are under different classification distinguishable from the ordinary criminals and procedure.

[Para 38]

E. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 15 - Trial procedure under TADA - Extraordinary laws like TADA are made to contain the extraordinary situation by providing harsh, drastic and stringent provisions, prescribing special procedure, departing from the procedure prescribed under the ordinary procedural law for the reason that the prevalent ordinary procedural law was found to be inadequate and not sufficiently effective to deal with the offenders indulging in terrorist and disruptive activities.

[Para 11]

F. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Interpretation of law which is stringent - The more stringent the Law, the less is the discretion of the Court - Stringent laws are made for the purpose to achieve its objectives - This being the intendment of the legislature the duty of the court is to see that the intention of the legislature is not frustrated. If there is any doubt or ambiguity in the statute, the rule of purposive construction should be taken recourse to, to achieve the objectives. (2004)7 Scale 158 relied.

[Para 14]

G. Interpretation of Statutes - When an expression is capable of more than one meaning, the court would attempt to resolve the ambiguity in a manner consistent with the purpose of the provision, having regard to the consequences of the alternative constructions. (2003)2 SCC 577 relied.

[Para 21]

H. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 15 - Confession under Section 15 of TADA - Section 15 of the TADA and Rules framed thereunder is a self-contained code in itself, providing procedural safeguards - Section 15 has overriding effect over the Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure Code, the only procedure to be followed in recording confession is the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Section 15 and Rules framed thereunder.

[Para 28]

I. Evidence Act, Section 32 - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 15 - Confession recorded under Section 15 of TADA - In the event Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act come in conflict with either recording of a confession of a person by a police officer of the rank mentioned therein, in any of the modes specified in the Section, or its admissibility at the trial, Section 15 of the TADA Act will have an overriding effect over the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act.

[Para 27]

Cases Referred :-

State v. Nalini, 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 682 (SC) : 1999(5) SCC 253.

Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik, (2002)1 SCC 1.

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(2) RCR (Criminal) 168 (SC) : (1994)3 SCC 569.

Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, 1994(3) RCR (Criminal) 156 (SC) : (1994)4 SCC 602.

Swedish Match AB & Anr. v. Securities & Exchange Board, India, (2004)7 Scale 158.

Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P., 1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 812 (SC) : (1997)7 SCC 431.

Rambhai Nathabhai Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, 1997(4) RCR (Criminal) 11 (SC) : (1997)7 SCC 744.

Gurprit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 206 (SC) : (2002)10 SCC 201.

Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal, (2003)2 SCC 577.

Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of India, 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 594.

Balram Kumawat v. Union of India, 2003(7) SCC 628.

Supdt. And Remembrancer of Legal Affiars to Govt. of W.B. v. Abani Maity, (1979)4 SCC 85.

Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., (1987)1 SCC 424.

Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohd. Shafi, (2001)8 SCC 540.

JUDGMENT

H.K. Sema, J. - All these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 19th March, 2001 passed by the Designated Court No. 3 at Ahmedabad in Terrorist Case No. 2 of 1997, Terrorist Case No. 33 of 1994 and Terrorist Case No. 16 of 1995. The two-Judge bench before whom these appeals were posted for hearing referred the matters to a three-Judge Bench by an order dated 24.9.2002. The said Order reads as under :-

2. This Court in State v. Nalini, 1999(2) RCR (Criminal) 682 (SC) : 1999(5) SCC 253, in paragraphs 80 and 81 stated the law to be as below :-

The view expressed above stands in unison with view expressed in paragraphs 408 and 674 and same is noticed as below :-

3. In turn, the three-Judge Bench by an order dated 9.3.2004 has referred the matters to a five-Judge Bench. The order reads :-

This is how the matters have been placed before this Bench.

4. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is a piece of Legislation containing 30 Sections. Though miniature legislation, the Act tends to be very harsh and drastic containing the stringent provisions to combat the menace of terrorism which has taken an endemic form indulging in wanton killings, arson, looting of properties and other heinous crimes affecting human rights and individual liberty. The constitutionality of the Act has been concluded by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(2) RCR (Criminal) 168 (SC) : (1994)3 SCC 569. The validity of Section 15 of the Act which would be relevant for the present purpose has been held to be intra-vires the Constitution. In paragraphs 217, 218, 220, 222, 236 and 243 it is said :

5. This Court also pointed out in paragraph 259 the procedural safeguards to be followed by the police officer with regard to the mode of recording the confession. It is then held in paragraph 260 (SCC p. 681) as under :-

6. This Court, however, as a matter of abundant caution laid down certain guidelines, so as to ensure that the confession obtained is not tainted with any vice and then said in paragraph 263 (SCC p. 682) as under :-

The Central Government may take note of these guidelines and incorporate them by appropriate amendments in the Act and the Rules.

7. The 1985 Act received the assent of the President on 23rd May and came into force on 24th May, 1985. The preamble of this Act reads that the special provisions of this Act were made "for the prevention of, and for coping with, terrorist and disruptive activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto". (emphasis supplied)

8. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act reads as follows :-

9. As the Act of 1985 was due to expire on 23rd May 1987, the President promulgated the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Ordinance, 1987 (2 of 1987) which came into force from 24th May 1987. The Ordinance was repealed by the enactment of 1987 (No. 28 of 1987) which received the assent of the President on 3rd September 1987. However, the scheme of the special provisions in the Act of 1985 and the Act of 1987 remains the same. The scheme of the Act being, for the prevention of, and for coping with, terrorist and disruptive activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

10. The 1987 Act was further amended by an Amending Act 43 of 1993. The Statement of Objects and Reasons to Amending Act are as follows :-

11. Thus, this type of extraordinary laws are made to contain the extraordinary situation by providing harsh, drastic and stringent provisions, prescribing special procedure, departing from the procedure prescribed under the ordinary procedural law for the reasons that the prevalent ordinary procedural law was found to be inadequate and not sufficiently effective to deal with the offenders indulging in terrorist and disruptive activities. The preambles and statements of objects and reasons as referred to above are manifestly evident that such extra-ordinary Act was made to deal with extra-ordinary situation for the prevention of, and for coping with, terrorist and disruptive activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

12. The term 'terrorism' has not been defined under the Act. This Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, 1994(3) RCR (Criminal) 156 (SC) : (1994)4 SCC 602 held in paragraph 7 (SCC p. 618) as under :-

13. As already noticed, the Act provides harsh and stringent provisions aimed at to achieve the statement of objects and reasons for the prevention of, and for coping with, terrorist and disruptive activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

14. The more stringent the Law, the less is the discretion of the Court. Stringent laws are made for the purpose to achieve its objectives. This being the intendment of the legislature the duty of the court is to see that the intention of the legislature is not frustrated. If there is any doubt or ambiguity in the statutes, the rule of purposive construction should be taken recourse to, to achieve the objectives. (See Swedish Match AB & Anr. v. Securities & Exchange Board, India & Anr. (2004)7 Scale 158 para 84 at p. 176)

15. Before we proceed further, we may at this stage, notice a few decisions of this Court on the subject. In the case of Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P., 1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 812 (SC) : (1997)7 SCC 431 the two-Judge Bench of this Court held in paragraph 5 (SCC p. 434) as under :-

This decision was rendered on 6th August, 1997. On the same day another decision by the same Bench was rendered in the case of Rambhai Nathabhai Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, 1997(4) RCR (Criminal) 11 (SC) : (1997)7 SCC 744 where it was pointed out in paragraph 18 (SCC p.751) as under :

It will be noticed that in both the judgments provisions of Section 12 of the Act have not been noticed. The decision rendered in Bilal Ahmed's case was followed in Gurprit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 206 (SC) : (2002)10 SCC 201.

16. The decision rendered in Bilal Ahmed's case was noticed by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253 (supra). In Nalini's case the Bench reconsidered the decision in Bilal Ahmed's case and overruled the decision in Bilal Ahmed's case. However, the decisions in Rambhai's case and Gurprit Singh's case have not been noticed in Nalini's case. In view of the decision in Nalini's case the decision rendered by a two-Judge Bench in Rambahi's and Gurprit Singh's case are per incuriam.

17. The primary question referred to this Bench for determination is, as to whether the confessional statement duly recorded under Section 15 of TADA would continue to remain admissible as for the offences under any other law which were tried along with TADA offences under Section 12 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the accused was acquitted of offences under TADA in the said trial.

18. The questions posed before us for the termination are no more res integra. In our view, the same have been set at rest by the three-Judge Bench decision rendered in Nalini (supra). The rigours of Sections 12 and 15 were considered in Nalini's case and rendered a finding in paragraphs 80, 81 and 82 (SCC p. 304) as under :-

19. We are in respectful agreement with the findings recorded by a three-Judge Bench in Nalini's case.

20. S.S.M. Quadri, J in his concurring judgment held in paragraphs 674 and 675 at SCC p. 571 as under :-

It was also pointed out in paragraph 704 at SCC p. 580 that a confession of an accused under Section 15 of the TADA Act is substantive evidence against the co-accused, abettor or conspirator jointly tried with the accused.

21. Before we proceed to consider the rigours of Sections 15 and 12 we may at this stage point out that it is a trite law that the jurisdiction of the Court to interpret a statute can be invoked only in case of ambiguity. The Court cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous. Narrow and pedantic construction may not always be given effect to. Courts should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility. It is also well settled that every statute is to be interpreted without any violence to its language. It is also trite that when an expression is capable of more than one meaning, the court would attempt to resolve the ambiguity in a manner consistent with the purpose of the provision, having regard to the consequences of the alternative constructions. In this connection, we may notice few decisions of this Court.

22. In Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal, (2003)2 SCC 577, the three-JudgeBench of this Court pointed out in paragraphs 35 and 37 (SCC p. 588) and (SCC p. 589) as under :-

23. In the case of Balram Kumawat v. Union of India, 2003(7) SCC 628, the three-Judge Bench of this Court pointed out in paragraph 23 at SCC p. 635 as under :-

and further in paragraph 30 at SCC p. 638 it was pointed out as under :-

In the backdrop of referred decisions and keeping in view the legislative intendment and scheme of the Act, we may now examine rigours of Sections 15 and 12 of the Act.

24. Section 15 deals with certain confessions made to police officers to be taken into consideration. It reads :-

25. Rule 15 deals with the recording of confession made to police officers. It reads :-

Sd/-

Police Officer.".

26. Section 12 deals with the power of Designated Courts with respect to other offences. It reads :-

27. On a cursory reading of both the Sections, it appears to us that the language employed therein is plain and unambiguous. As pointed out by this Court in Nalini's case (supra) Section 15 consists of two limbs. The first limb bars application of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act to a confession made by a person before a police officer not lower in rank than a Superintendent of Police and recorded by him in any of the modes noted in the Section. The second limb makes such a confession admissible, de hors the provisions of the Evidence Act in the trial of such person or co-accused, abettor or conspirator for an offence under the TADA Act or rules made thereunder provided the co-accused, abettor or conspirator is charged and tried in the same case together with the accused as provided in Section 12 of the Act. It was also pointed out that in the event Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act come in conflict with either recording of a confession of a person by a police officer of the rank mentioned therein, in any of the modes specified in the Section, or its admissibility at the trial, Section 15 of the TADA Act will have an overriding effect over the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act.

28. Counsel for the appellants strenuously urged that the words "for an offence under this Act" employed in Section 15 suggest that the confession recorded under Section 15 in the manner provided, excludes the confession admissible in evidence if no offence under TADA is made out. In other words, the confession recorded under Section 15 in the manner provided excludes the confession admissible in evidence insofar for the other offences are concerned. Counsel also urged that the words, "but subject to provisions of this Section" also suggest that the said provisions are confined only to the TADA offences. We are unable to accept this contention. Section 15 of the TADA Act and Rules framed thereunder is a self-contained code in itself, providing procedural safeguards and the words, "but subject to the provisions of this Section" employed therein would mean the procedural safeguards prescribed under the Section. As already pointed out Section 15 has overriding effect over the Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure Code, the only procedure to be followed in recording confession is the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Section 15 and Rules framed thereunder. This would be the only intention of the Legislation while introducing the words, "but subject to provisions of this section" in Section 15(1).

29. So far the words "for an offence under this Act" is concerned, the word 'Act' referred to in Section 15(1) is relatable to Section 12 of the Act. Section 15 therefore has to be read together with Section 12.

30. By now it is well settled Principle of Law that no part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place. It is also trite that the statute or rules made thereunder should be read as a whole and one provision should be construed with reference to the other provision to make the provision consistent with the object sought to be achieved.

31. In Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (1987)1 SCC 424, this Court said : (SCC p. 450, para 33)

32. In Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohd. Shafi and Others, (2001)8 SCC 540, this Court held:

33. Section 12 which empowers the Designated Court to try any other offence with which the accused may be charged under the Code at the same trial provided the offence is connected with such other offence. This section has been brought to the statute book in consonance with the preamble of the Act, which says, "for the prevention of, and for coping with, terrorist and disruptive activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto." Therefore, Section 12 is introduced to take care of the matters connected with or incidental to terrorist activities.

34. A conjoint reading of two sections as a whole, it leaves no manner of doubt that one provision is to be construed with reference to the other provision and vice versa so as to make the provision consistent with the object sought to be achieved. The scheme and object of the Act being the admissibility of the confession recorded under Section 15 of the Act in the trial of a person or co-accused, abettor or conspirator is charged and tried in the same case together with the accused, as provided under Section 12 of the Act.

35. Counsel contends that Section 12 is only enabling provision empowering the Designated Court to try and convict for the offences committed under any other law along with the offences under the TADA so as to avoid multiplicity of the Trial and does not empower the Designated Court to try and convict for other offences, even if the offences under the TADA are not made out. Does it mean, "Thou shalt have teeth, but not bite". We think not. When the Courts have power to try, it is implicit in it that they have the power to convict also. In the present case sub-section 2 of Section 12 expressly empowered the Designated Court to convict the accused person of such other offence and pass any sentence authorised by the Act - if the offence is connected with such other offence and - if it is found that the accused person has committed any other offence.

36. Section 12(1) as quoted above authorises the Designated Court to try offences under the TADA along with another offence with which the accused may be charged under Criminal Procedure Code at the same trial. The only embargo imposed on the exercise of the power is that the offence under the TADA is connected with any other offence being tried together. Further, Section 12(2) provides that the Designated Court may convict the accused person of offence under that Act or any rule made thereunder or under any other law and pass any sentence authorised under that Act or the rules or under any other law, as the case may be for the punishment thereof, if in the course of any trial under the TADA the accused persons are found to have committed any offence either under that Act or any rule or under any other law.

37. The legislative intendment underlying Sections 12(1) and (2) is clearly discernable, to empower the Designated Court to try and convict the accused for offences committed under any other law along with offences committed under the Act, if the offence is connected with such other offence. The language, "if the offence is connected with such other offence" employed in Section 12(1) of the Act has great significance. The necessary corollary is that once the other offence is connected with the offence under the TADA and if the accused is charged under the Code and tried together in the same trial, the Designated Court is empowered to convict the accused for the offence under any other law, notwithstanding the fact that no offence under TADA is made out. This could be the only intendment of the legislature. To hold otherwise, would amount to rewrite or recast legislation and read something into it which is not there.

38. Counsel also urged that the rigours of Section 12 is discriminatory and attract the wrath of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as it empowers the Designated Court to try and convict the accused for the offences committed under any other law along with the offences committed under the TADA thereby depriving the rights available to the accused under the ordinary law. In our opinion, this contention is misconceived. It is trite law that Article 14 prohibits discrimination, but allows reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia, having nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The object sought to be achieved by introducing Section 12 is to take care of the offence connected with or incidental to terrorist activities. The other offence being connected and inextricably inter-twined with the Terrorist Act. As already pointed out in Kartar Singh (supra) the Trial under TADA is a departure from the ordinary law. The persons who are tried for offences specified under the provisions of TADA are a distinct class of persons and the procedure prescribed for trying them for the aggravated and incensed nature of offences are under different classification distinguishable from the ordinary criminals and procedure. This distinction and classification of grouping of the accused and the offences to be tried under TADA are to achieve the meaningful purpose and object of the Act as reflected from the preamble as well as the statement of objects and reasons.

39. The Act, as noticed above, is a special provision for special purpose. It is a departure from the ordinary procedural law. Plea of discriminatory treatment for want of availability of ordinary procedural law would not be available.

40. For the reasons aforestated, we are of the view that the decision in Nalini's case has laid down correct law and we hold that the confessional statement duly recorded under Section 15 of TADA and Rules framed thereunder would continue to remain admissible for the offences under any other law which were tried along with TADA offences under Section 12 of the Act, notwithstanding that the accused was acquitted of offences under TADA in the same trial.

41. The other leg of the submission is rigours of Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 deals with the power to transfer cases to regular courts. It reads :-

42. It is contended that the words, "after taking cognizance" employed in Section 18 of the Act would include any stage of trial including the stage when the judgment is to be delivered. This submission is also misconceived. If it ought to have been the intention of the legislature they could have said so. The legislature deliberately uses the words "after taking cognizance of any offence" to mean that Section 18 would be attracted only at the stage where the Designated Court takes cognizance of offence i.e., after the investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed. The provisions of Section 209 Criminal Procedure Code to which the counsel for the appellants sought to rely are not in pari materia with Section 18. In Section 209 Criminal Procedure Code the words "after taking cognizance" are absent conspicuously. Section 18 is a filtered provision. The Section is attracted only at a stage the Designated Court takes cognizance of offence. It is at the stage of taking cognizance, the Designated Court is expected to scan the documents and evidence collected therewith, if the Designated Court is of opinion that the offence is not triable by it, it shall, then notwithstanding that it has no jurisdiction to try such offence, transfer the case for the trial of such offence to any court having jurisdiction under the Code and the Court to which the case is transferred may proceed with the trial of the offence as if it had taken cognizance of the offence. In our view, there is no ambiguity in the language used in Section 18. If the submissions of the counsel for the appellant are accepted, it would amount to reading something into the statute which is not there.

43. Having said so, we also notice the note of caution of this Court in Kartar Singh (supra) in paragraph 352 ( SCC p.707) as under :-

In our view the above observation is eloquently sufficient to caution police officials as well as the Presiding Officers of the Designated Courts from misusing the Act and to enforce the Act effectively and inconsonance with the legislative intendment which would mean after the application of mind. We reiterate the same.

For the reasons aforestated, the reference is answered in the above terms. The appeals shall now be listed before a regular Bench for hearing.

Reference answered.