- (1.) In this appeal, the order dated 21st April, 1997 passed by the learned Addl. Designated Judge, Ahmedabad rejecting the application made by the appellant for dropping the charge under Sections 3 and 5 of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short TADA) in Terrorist Criminal Case No. 3/96 arising out of I.C.R. No. 94/93 of the Police Station, Rakhiyal, District Ahmedabad on account of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 20-A of TADA, is under challenge.* From Judgment and Order of Designated Court, Ahmedabad in T.C.C. No. 3 of 1996, D/- 21-4-1997.
(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to the decision of three Judges' Bench of this Court in Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1995 SC 2390. It has been held in the said decision that cognizance of the offence under TADA can be taken on compliance of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 20-A and sub-section (2) of Section 20-A of TADA. Sub-section (1) of Section 20-A of TADA provides : 20-A (1) 'Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no information about the commission of an offence under this Act shall be recorded by the police without the prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police.'
(3.) The learned Counsel has contended that in this case, the statutory authority as referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 20-A of TADA has not given any prior approval for initiating the criminal proceedings under TADA. Therefore charges under TADA cannot be invoked.;