Confession Recorded Under TADA Not Admissible In The Trial For Offence Under Other Enactments: SC [Read Judgment]

In this case, the Designated TADA Court had acquitted the accused on the ground that neither prior approval under Section 20 A(1) of TADA nor prior sanction under Section 20-A(2) of TADA was in conformity with the mandate of the stated provisions. The State had appealed against this order before the Supreme Court.

Upholding the court's view that there was no valid sanction, the bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi observed: "We are at a loss to know as to how Sections 4 & 5 of TADA would apply to a case of mere possession of walky-talkies. Section 4 refers to disruptive activities whereas Section 5 refers to possession of unauthorized classified arms and ammunition. A walky-talky is certainly not one of those classified arms and ammunition. In our opinion, the purported sanction vide Exh.57 also suffers from the vice of non-application of mind, on this count alone. "

The accused were also charged with offences under other enactments namely, IPC, Arms Act, Indian Telegraph Act, Indian Wireless and Telegraphy Act. The Designated Court had held that it no independent power to try any other offence, as valid sanction under Section 20­A (2) was not in place. 

In this regard, the Apex court, observed that, the Designated Court, besides trying the case under TADA, can also try any other offence with which the accused may be charged at the same trial if the offences are connected with offences under TADA. Implicit power has been bestowed upon the Designated Court to convict the accused for offences under other enactments if there is legally admissible evidence to establish those charges, the Court added. The bench, in the instant case, said:

"Even in the present case, it is noticed that the prosecution has essentially relied upon the confessional statement of the accused recorded under the provisions of TADA. That will be of no avail and certainly not admissible against the accused in the trial for offences under other enactments, especially when the Designated Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence under TADA for lack of a valid sanction. Additionally, in the present case, the evidence produced by the prosecution regarding search and seizure is replete with fatal deficiencies. We do not wish to deviate from the view taken by the Designated Court that there was no legally admissible evidence to establish the charges against the respondents regarding offences under other enactments (other than TADA). "

Read Judgment