- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Lal Singh v. State Of Gujarat And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The matter concerns a set of criminal appeals filed under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The appellants attempted, for the first time on appeal, to challenge the validity of the sanction order on which the Designated Court had taken cognizance. The present opinion addresses only that preliminary objection; the substantive merits of the appeals have been deferred to a future two-judge bench.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, under Section 20-A(2) of TADA, a trial is vitiated if cognizance was taken on the basis of a defective sanction order.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court declined to entertain the newly-raised objection to the sanction order for the following reasons:
- Statutory framework of TADA and CrPC: Section 14(3) of TADA confers upon a Designated Court all the powers of a Court of Session, thereby importing the procedural safeguards and curative provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
- Curative effect of CrPC Section 465: Section 465(1) CrPC states that no finding or sentence shall be reversed merely because of an “error, omission or irregularity” in the sanction unless a failure of justice has occurred. Sub-section (2) directs the appellate court to consider whether the objection “could and should have been raised at an earlier stage.”
- Timing of the objection: Because the appellants did not raise the alleged defect during trial, the Court held that Section 465 cures any such irregularity. Consequently, no failure of justice was shown, and the objection was deemed ignorable.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Court refused to permit the appellants to challenge the sanction order at the appellate stage and directed that the appeals be listed before a two-member bench for consideration on the merits.
Implications: The immediate effect is that the appellants cannot rely on the alleged defect in sanction to overturn their convictions. The broader implication is a reaffirmation that objections to sanction must be timely, and that Section 465 CrPC will shield convictions from belated procedural attacks when no miscarriage of justice is demonstrated.
1. In this set of appeals, one of the questions raised is whether in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 20-A of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, the Court having taken cognizance on a defective sanction order, the trial would vitiate? That there was a sanction order on the basis of which the Court took cognizance is beyond dispute. The effort herein is to point out defects therein so as to render it invalid. This question was not raised at the trial. It is being raised here for the first time. We are not prepared to have it raised.
2. Even otherwise, the objection would fail for what is provided under sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The provision reads as follows:
“14. (3) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Designated Court shall, for the purpose of trial of any offence, have all the powers of a Court of Session and shall try such offence as if it were a Court of Session as far as may be in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code for the trial before a Court of Session.”
3. Since for all purposes the Designated Court is a Court of Session to which the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure come to aid, Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure falling in Chapter XXXV regarding irregular proceedings cures the defect. The provision reads as follows:
“465. Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission or irregularity.—(1) Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
(2) In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution has occasioned a failure of justice, the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.”
4. Sub-section (2) makes it clear that when the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceeding and has not been raised, mere error or irregularity in any sanction of prosecution becomes ignorable. We therefore do not permit the appellants to raise the plea of defect in sanction.
5. Regarding the merit of the matter, we feel that these appeals should be placed before a two-member Bench. Ordered accordingly. To be listed in due course.
Alert