Views
2 years ago

Crl.AppealNo.2295-2296of2010

Crl.AppealNo.2295-2296of2010

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -106-safeguard whereunder the DSP was required toobtain the sanction/consent of the StateGovernment, we are of the view that in thepresent case the same was given by the StateGovernment without proper application of mind.We have taken this view because thesanction/consent was given by the Governmentmerely on the basis of the fax message dated17-3-1995 of the DSP. The reason for our sayingso is that though there is no record a faxmessage of Deputy Director General of Policealso, which is dated 18-3-1995, thesanction/consent order has mentioned above thefax message of the DSP only. Now, no doubt themessage of the DSP is quite exhaustive, aswould appear from that message which has beenquoted above in full, we are inclined to thinkthat before agreeing to the use of harshprovisions of TADA against the appellants, theGovernment ought to have taken some steps tosatisfy itself whether what had been stated bythe DSP was borne out by the records, whichapparently had not been called for in thepresent case, as the sanction/consent was givenpost-haste on 18-3-1995, i.e., the very nextday of the message of the DSP. It seems the DSPemphasised the political angle in the first twoparagraphs of his message. The dispute ormotive stated was that the Darbars were annoyedbecause they were refused loan and not becauseof any political rivalry. In the thirdparagraph there is reference to statements ofaccused after arrest which would ordinarily beinadmissible in evidence. Reference to avoidincident of the past does not provide anynexus. The State Government gave the sanctionwithout even discussing the matter with theinvestigating officer and without assessing the

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -107-situation independently. All these show lack ofproper and due application of mind by the StateGovernment while giving sanction/consent.”(emphasis laid by this Court)It was the Deputy Secretary, Law and Order, Mr. J.RRajput who had signed the document of sanction issuedin the name of the Governor (Ex.498). However, he wasnot examined by the Court. On the other hand, PW-88,the Principal Secretary was examined. Therefore, weintend to examine the statement of PW-88, since heformed the only link in the Home Ministry of State ofGujarat and could enlighten us with the facts andinformation which were taken into consideration by himwhile granting sanction.While deposing before the Special Court (POTA), PW-88stated that he had not discussed anything with theHome Minister regarding the grant of sanction and theMinister had simply signed the proposed note as a markof approval. PW-88 further stated that he had not

A Modern Prosecution Service - Department of Justice
legislation and prosecutions in uganda
Operation Marble
Putting on Mock Trials - Law-Related Education
HamMUN 2012 Study Guide_HRC
M887 - National Archives and Records Administration
Natural History Museum - The Open University
Presentation: European Gold Forum (Zurich) - Avocet Mining PLC
PRINCE2-Practitioner BrainDumps
Searchable Press Cuttings Part 2 (PDF Format, Size 17.2MB)
The life of the Prophet Muhammad - Ibn Kathir - volume 4 of 4
Close encounters - A report on police shoot-outs in Delhi, Oct., 2004
CLEVELAND PRIMER. i r • • Paper I - To Parent Directory
Download PDF - Wood Library-Museum of Anesthesiology
Code of Conduct 100x200 covers.ai - Frontex - Europa
Focus - Institute of Videography