MOHAMMAD HUSAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals altogether 9 persons were arraigned before a Designated Court for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short TADA'). The four persons involved in this appeal were included in the above list of 9 accused. Taking qua from the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Kartar singh v. State of Punjabi a Review committee was constituted by the State Government of Rajasthan. On the recommendations made by the Review Committee, an application was made before the Designated Court for withdrawal from prosecution in respect of 4 appellants in these two appeals. However, the designated Court did not accede to the said application as per the impugned order. Hence these appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the confessional statement recorded, attributing the same to appellant, mumtaz Mohammad. He contended that even if the entire confessional statement is accepted as true, these appellants cannot be convicted, particularly in view of Section 94 of the Indian penal Code

(3.) We are not inclined to consider the said contention due to another development which took place subsequently. The Special Public prosecutor appointed for conducting the prosecution before the Designated Court concerned has now submitted a fresh application containing very many details to show how he reached the satisfaction envisaged in Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Our attention has now been invited to a decision of this court in P. M. Tewari, Advocate v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors2. it is advantageous to have paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of this decision and hence they are extracted below :