AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this set of appeals, one of the questions raised is whether in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 20A 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.
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."
Since for all purposes the Designated Court is a Court of Session to which the provisions of the CrPC come to aid, Section 465 of the CrPC 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."
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.
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.