STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. MOHAMMAD SHAMSUNDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A large number of accused were arrayed before a Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) for offences under Sections 3 and 5 of tada besides other offences. When the accused persons raised the question of want of sanction under Section 20-A of the Act the judge of the Designated Court examined the validity of the sanction and found that no valid sanction had been accorded by the Commissioner of Police-cum-Addl. District Magistrate, hyderabad as per the proceedings dated 7-9- 1994. Accordingly the Judge of the Designated court ordered that the TADA Court has no jurisdiction to try the offences. The impugned order was passed pursuant thereto.

(2.) Today when we heard learned Coun sel for the State of A, P. for some time we wanted to know the proceedings by which sanction under Section 20-A had been granted. The sanctioning Authority said that "after perusing the entire file. I am satisfied that the above accused committed offence under Explosive substance Act and it is a fit case for prosecution. " after saying so he ordered thus:

(3.) Prima facie we feel that Mr. H. J. Dora, the then Commissioner of Police-cum-Addl. District Magistrate, Hyderabad who passed the said proceedings exercised his power under section 20-A in a very casual manner.