LAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(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:

(3.) 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: