Holding

The FIR is not void; lack of prior approval only barred investigation of TADA offences, and subsequent approval and sanction validate the charge‑sheet, so the charges stand.

Summary

The appellant, Ahmad Umar Saeed Sheikh, was charged under IPC sections 307, 332, 427, the Foreigners Act, and TADA sections 3 and 4. He contended that the FIR, lodged on a Sub‑Inspector's complaint, was invalid because it was recorded without the prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police required by TADA section 20A(1), and therefore the charges should be quashed. The Court observed that the FIR also alleged offences under the IPC for which such approval is not mandatory, so the lack of approval only barred investigation of the TADA offences at that stage. After the FIR, the investigating agency sought and obtained the necessary approval to add the TADA provisions and later filed the charge‑sheet with the sanction required under section 20A(2). The Court held that these steps cured the procedural defect and the charges could not be quashed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether an FIR recorded without prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police under TADA s.20A(1) is invalid and warrants quashing of the charges.
Whether the absence of such approval precludes investigation of non‑TADA offences alleged in the same FIR.
Whether subsequent approval and sanction under TADA s.20A(2) cure the initial procedural lapse.

Legislation cited

Criminal Law Amendment Acts. 7
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307, s. 332, s. 427
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987s. 20A(1), s. 20A(2), s. 3, s. 4

Subjects

TADAFIRprior approvalsection 20Aquashing of chargescriminal procedureinvestigationcharge sheet

Judgment

AHMAD UMAR SAEED SHEIKH A
• " v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

NOVEMBER 21, 1996

[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] B

Te11·01ists and Disniptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987:

S.20A(J)-F.J.R.-Prayer for quashing of for non-approval of Distdct
Supedntendent of Polic~F.1.R. recorded on complaint of Sub-Inspector of
Police under ss.332, 307 and 427 J.P. C., s. 7 of Clim in al Law Amendment
c
Act and ss.3 and 4 of TADA without p1ior approval of Distdct Supedntendent
of Police-Held, F.l.R. was recorded not only for offences under TADA but
also fo' offences under l.P.C. for which the police officer concemed was
competent to lodge the F.l.R. without such approval-Absence of approval of
Disllict Supedntendent of Police u/s. 20A (1) at that stage only disentitled the D
investigating agency to investigate into the offences relating to TADA but it
had a statuto1y light to investigaie imo other offences alleged in F.l.R.-Be-
sides, after F.l.R. was lodged, approval was sought from and accorded by
Distdct Supedntendent of Police to add ss.3 and 4 of TADA-On completion
of investigation charge-sheet submitted with sanction of autlw1ity concemed E
as required u/s 20A(2)-Charges not liable to be quashed.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
680 of 1996.
~
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.4.96 of the Designated Court F
at Meerut in Cr!. Case No. 2/95 arising out of FIR No. 245/94 dated
31.10.94.

G. Ramaswamy, K.M.M. Khan, W.A. Ansari and Shuyab Arshi for
Ms. Sangeeta Kumar for the Appellant.
G
T.N. Singh for A.S. Pundir for the Respondent.
....
The following Order of the Court was delivered :

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant for quashing the
charges that have been framed against him by the Designated Judge, H
53
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A Meerut under Sections 307, 332 and 427 IPC, Section 14 of the Foreigners
Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Preven-
tion) Act, 1987 ('TADA' for short).

Mr. Ramaswamy, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted
that the entire proceedings initiated against the appellant, including the
B charges, were liable to be quashed as the First Information Report, which
ultimately culminated in the impugned proceedings against the appellant,
was lodged in utter breach of Section 20A (1) of TADA, which provides
that no information about the commission of an offence under TADA shall
be recorded by the police without the prior approval of the District
C Superintendent of Police. To bring home his contention he has drawn our
attention to the F.I.R. that was recorded on the complaint of a Sub
Inspector of Police for offences punishable under Sections 332, 307 and
427 !PC, 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 3 and 4 of
TADA.

D
After having given our anxious consideration to the above contention
of Mr. Ramaswamy we are unable to accept the same. It is of course true
that when the above F.I.R. was recorded no prior approval of the Super-
intendent of Police was obtained as required under Section 20 A (1) but,
as noticed above, the F.I.R. was recorded not only for offences under
E TADA but also for offences under the Indian Penal Code for commission
of which the concerned police officer was competent to lodge an F.I.R.
without such approval. The absence of approval of District Superintendent
of Police as required under Section 20 A(l) of TADA at that stage only
disentitled the investigating agency to investigate into the offences relating
p to TADA but it had a statutory right to investigate into the other offences
alleged in the F.I.R. If the F.I.R. was lodged only for commission of offence
under TADA we might have persuaded ourselves to accept the contention
of Mr. Ramaswamy, but there being allegation of other offences therein it
cannot be said that the F.1.R. so far as it sought investigation of these
offences was non-est.
G
There are certain other facts which required to be noticed at this
stage. After the F.I.R. was lodged, the investigating agency made a prayer
before the Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad on November 21, 1994
seeking his approval to add Sections 3 and 4 of TADA on the ground that
H during investigation the involvement of the appellant in commission of such
AHMAD UMAR SAEED SHEIKH v. STATE 55

offences was revealed. The approval sought for was granted and thereafter A
on completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted with the sanction
of the concerned authority as required under Section 20A(2) of TADA
Since the above steps taken by the Investigating Agency are in conformity
with the provisions of both sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 20 A of TADA
the impugned charges are not liable to be quashed on the grounds agitated B
by Mr. Ramaswamy. As no other point was raised in support of this appeal
we dismiss the same.

R.P. Appeal dismissed.