AHMAD UMAR SAEED SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant for quashing the charges that have been framed against him by the Designated Judge, Meerut under S. 307, 332 and 427 Indian Penal Code, section 14 of the Foreigners Act and S. 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act, 1987 ('tada' for short).

(2.) Mr Ramaswamy, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the entire proceedings initiated against the appellant, including the charges, were liable to be quashed as the first information report, which ultimately culminated in the impugned proceedings against the appellant, was lodged in utter breach of section 20-A (1) of TADA, which provides that no information about the commission of an offence under TADA shall be recorded by the police without the prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police. To bring home his contention he has drawn our attention to the FIR that was recorded on the complaint of a Sub-Inspector of Police for offences punishable under S. 332, 307 and 427 Indian Penal Code, section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and S. 3 and 4 of TADA.

(3.) After having given our anxious consideration to the above contention of Mr Ramaswamy we are unable to accept the same. It is of course true that when the above FIR was recorded no prior approval of the Superintendent of Police was obtained as required under section 20-A (1) but, as noticed above, the FIR was recorded not only for offences under TADA but also for offences under the Indian Penal Code for commission of which the police officer concerned was competent to lodge an FIR without such approval. The absence of approval of District Superintendent of Police as required under section 20-A (1) of TADA at that stage only disentitled the investigating agency to investigate into the offences relating to TADA but it had a statutory right to investigate into the other offences alleged in the FIR. If the FIR was lodged only for commission of offences under TADA we might have persuaded ourselves to accept the contention of Mr Ramaswamy, but there being allegation of other offences therein it cannot be said that the FIR, so far as it sought investigation of these offences, was non est.