Balbir Singh v. State of Delhi

A ## BALBIR SINGH _v._ ## ST A TE OF DELHI ## JUNE 21, 2007 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] _Terrorist and Disruption Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-ss. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 20A(2)-Absence of sanction of the Police Commissioner under_ C _s.20A(2)- Effect of-Held: Designated TADA Court consequently had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter and take cognizance of the offence-But that did not lead to acquittal of the accused-On subsequent grant of sanction, proceedings could be legally continued against the accused-Arms Act, 1959-ss. 25 & 26--Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s.300._ D By order dated 19.4.1997, the Designated TADA Court had held that in absence of sanction of the Commissioner of Police as required under subsection (2) of Section 20-A of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, proceedings against Appellant-accused became non est. E E Pursuant to the said order, sanction was accorded and the Designated TADA Court issued summons on 2-3-2002 by the impugned order after overruling objections raised by the Appellant that there was virtual infraction of Section 300, CrPC. The Court held that proceedings could be legally continued against the Appellant and accordingly took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the TADA Act and Sections 25 and 26 of the F Arms Act, 1959. In appeal to this Court, it is contended that the view expressed by the Designated TADA court is unsustainable and that after a long passage of time and the expiry of currency of Statute itself (i.e. TADA) the continuance of the G proceedings would be sheer abuse of the process of the Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court H HELD:l.1. The position seems to be unexceptionable that the concerned Court by judgment dated 19.4.1997 could not have directed acquittal In the 1102 BALBIR SINGH _v._ STATE OF DELHI 1103 absence of sanction the Court had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter and take cogniz.ance of the offence. But the order passed in that regard cannot - lead to acquittal of the accused. !Para 7111105-D) 1.2. Where a person has done something which is made punishable by law he is liable to face a trial and this liability cannot come to an end merely because the court before which he was placed for trial forms an opinion that B it has not jurisdiction to try him or that it has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged against him. I Para 12111106-C, DI , _Mohd. Safi_ v. _State of West Bengal,_ AIR (1966) SC 69, relied on. _Bas Deo Agarwala_ v. _King Emperor,_ AIR (1945) FC 16 and _Falli Mui/a_ C _Noor Bhoy_ v. _The King,_ AIR (1949) PC 264, referred to. 2. So far as applicability of Section 300 (1), CrPC ir concerned, ·essentially the conditions for invoking the bar are : (i) the Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance and try the accused and (ii) the Court has D recorded an order of conviction of acquittal and such conviction/acquittal . remains in force. [Para 121 (1106-E, F) 3. The question relating to delayed sanction needs to be noted in the background of what this Court observed in an earlier case. It is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer E limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. The criminal courts are not obliged to terminate trial or criminal proceedings merely on account of lapse of time. Such time-limits cannot and will not by themselves be treated by any court as a bar to further continuance of the trial or proceedings and as mandatorily obliging the court to terminate the same and acquit or discharge the accused. A watchful and diligent trial Judge can prove to be a better F protector of such right than any guidelines. (Para 13) [1106-F; 1107-C, D, F, G] _P. Ramachandra Rao_ v. _State of Karnataka,_ [20021 4 SCC 578, relied on. G 4. The impugneJ order passed by the Designated Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. However, the trial court is requested to dispose of the matter as early as practicable preferably within 6 months from the date of communication of this order. (Para 141 (1108-B, CJ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 844 of H (2007) 7 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1104 A 2002. From the Order dated 2.03.2002 of the Designated (TADA) Court II, Delhi in Session Case No. 48 of2001. Rajiv Dutta, H.S. Bhatti, Namata Chopra and R. Nedumaran for the **B** Appellant. Ashok Bhan and D.S Mehra for the Respondent. > The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C **DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J.** I. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Judge, Designated Court II, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.48 of 200 I holding that the proceedings can be legally continued against the appellant and took cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, _5_ and 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short the 'TADA Act') and Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short **D** the 'Arms Act'). 2. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass and a brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. The appellant and one Paljit Kaur @ Richpal Kaur @ Pali wife of E Paramjit Singh had allegedly committed offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, _5_ and 6 of TADA Act and Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act. Charge sheet was filed on 20.8.1993. The allegations related to alleged commission of offence on 5th December, 1992. By amendment to TADA Act, Section 20A(2) was introduced with effect from 22.5.1993 i.e. prior to filing of the charge F sheet. Charges were framed on 16.12.1993. Bail was granted to the appellant on 6.5.1994. Subsequently, on expiry of eight years' currency period, the term of TADA Act expired on 23.5.1995. By order dated 19.4.1997 the Designated Court held that in absence of sanction of the Commissioner of Police as required under sub-section (2) of Section 20-A of TADA Act, the proceedings were _non est_ and the cognizance taken by the Court for offences µnder the G TADA Act was bad in law. 3. The expression used by the concerned Court in the judgment dated 19.4.1997 was '.'acquittal of the accused persons for the want of sanction". Subsequently, pursuant to the order by the concerned Court goods seized were retained 3.2.1998. On 4.7.2001 sanction was accorded and the order in **H** _t_ 1105 BALBIRSINGH v.STATEOFDELHI [PASAYAT.J.) that regard was passed and the charge sheet was filed on 18.7.2001 and summons were issued on 2.3.2002 by the impugned order. 4. The Court over-ruled the objections raised by the appellant that the proceedings were non est as it virtually amounted to infraction of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). The Designated Court did not accept the plea and observed that though the expression a "acquittal" was used, in essence it cannot be an order of acquittal on merits of the case and could only operate as an order of discharge. 5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view expressed by the lower court is unsustainable. According to C him, after a long passage of time and the expiry of currency of Statute itself the continuance of the proceedings would be sheer abuse of the process of the Court. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the order of the lower court. D. 7. The position seems to be unexceptionable that the concerned Court by judgment dated 19.4.1997 could not have directed acquittal. In the absence of sanction the Court had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter and take cognizance of the offence. But the order passed in that regard cannot lead to acquittal of the accused. E 8. Section 20-A (2) of the Act reads as follows: "No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the Inspector General of Police, or as the case may be, the Commissioner of Police." F 9. Section 20-A(2) operate as a bar on taking cognizance of the offence. l 0. The effect of such an order has been considered by Federal Court in _Bas Deo Agarwala_ v. _King Emperor,_ AIR (1945) FC 16. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: G "That the prosecution launched without valid sanction is invalid and or that under the common law a plea of autrefois acquit or convict can only be raised where the first trial was before a court competent to pass a valid order of acquittal or conviction. Unless the earlier trial was a lawful one which might have resulted in a conviction, the H 1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R. A accused was never in jeopardy." 11. The principles set out in _Bas Deo Agarwala 's_ case (supra) were followed in _Falli Mui/a Noor Bhoy_ v. _The King,_ AIR (1949) PC 264. The factual scenario in that case was that after framing of the charge the Magistrate acquitted the accused after coming to the conclusion that the sanction as B required by law was not there and the trial was incompetent. It was held that the order of acquittal was without jurisdiction and could only operate as an order of discharge because the Magistrate in such a case ought to discharge the accused on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to try him. C 12. This Court in _Mohd. Safi_ v. _State of West Bengal,_ AIR ( 1966) SC 69 observed as follows: D E "Where a Court comes to such a conclusion albeit erroneously it is difficult to appreciate how that court can absolve the person arraigned before it completely of the offence alleged against him. Where a person has done something which is made punishable by law he is liable to face a trial and this liability cannot come to an end merely because the court before which he was placed for trial forms an opinion that it has not jurisdiction to try him or that it has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged against him. Where, therefore, a court says, though erroneously that it was not competent to take cognizance of the offence it has no power to acquit that person of the offence." So far as applicability of Section 300 ( 1) of the Code is concerned, essentially the conditions for invoking the bar are: (i) the Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance and try the accused and (ii) the Court has recorded an order of F conviction or acquittal and such conviction/acquittal remains in force. 13. The question relating to delayed sanction needs to be noted in the background of what this Court observed in _P. Ramachandra Rao_ v. _State of Karnataka,_ (2002] 4 SCC 578. In para 29 it was observed as follows: G H "29. For all the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that in Common Cause case (I) (1996] 4) SCC 33) (as modified in Common Cause (II) [ 1996] 6 SCC 775) and _Raj Deo Sharma_ (I) and (II) ( 1998(7) SCC 507 and 1999 (7) SCC 604) the Court could not have prescribed periods of limitation beyond which the trial of a criminal case or a criminal proceeding cannot continue and must mandatorily be closed I _t_ 1107 BALBIRSINGUv.STATEOFDELHI (PASAYAT.J.) followed by an order acquitting or discharging the accused. In A conclusion we hold: ( 1) The dictum in _A. R. Antu lay_ case is correct and still holds the field. > (2) The propositions emerging from Article 21 of the Constitution and expounding the right to speedy trial laid down as guidelines in A.R. B Antulay case adequately take care of right to speedy trial. We uphold and reaffirm the said propositions. (3) The guidelines laid down in A.R. Antulay case are not exhaustive but only illustrative. They are not intended to operate as hard-andfast rules or to be applied like a straitjacket formula. Their applicability C would depend on the fact situation of each case. It is difficult to foresee all situations and no generalization can be made. (4) It is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. The time-limits or bars of limitation prescribed in the D several directions made in _Common Cause_ (I), _Raj Deo Sharma_ (l) and Raj Deo Sharma (II) could not have been so prescribed or drawn and are not good law. The criminal courts are not obliged to terminate trial or criminal proceedings merely on account of lapse of time, as prescribed by the directions made in Common Cause case (I), _Raj Deo Sharma_ case (I) and (II). At the most the periods of time prescribed E in those decisions can be taken by the courts seized of the trial or proceedings to act as reminders when they may be persuaded to apply their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before them and determine by taking into consideration the several relevant factors as pointed out in _AR. Antulay_ case and decide whether F the trial or proceedings have become so inordinately delayed as to be called oppressive and unwarranted. Such time-limits cannot and will not by themselves be treated by any court as a bar to further continuance of the trial or proceedings and as mandatorily obliging the court to terminate the same and acquit or discharge the accused. G (5) The criminal courts should exercise their available powers, such as those under Sections 309, 311and258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to effectuate the right to speedy trial. A watchful and diligent trial Judge can prove to be a better protector of such right than any guidelines. In appropriate cases, jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can H _(_ SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R. 1108 A be invoked seeking appropriate relief or suitable directions. (6) This is an. appropriate occasion to remind the Union of India and the State Governments of their constitutional obligation to strengthen the judiciary quantitatively and qualitatively by providing requisite funds, manpower and infrastructure. We hope and trust that the B Governments shall act. We answer the questions posed in the orders of reference dated 19.9.2000 and 26.4.2001 in the abovesaid terms." 14. The impugned order passed by the Designated Court does not C suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. However, the trial Court is requested to dispose of the matter as early as practicable preferably within 6 months from the date of communication of this order. ## 15. The appeal is dismissed. D B.B.B. Appeal dismissed. '[; ]