Holding

Confessional statements recorded under TADA s.15 are admissible against co‑accused tried in the same trial, even if the co‑accused is not charged under TADA, and the IPC convictions stand while the TADA charges are dismissed for lack of terrorist intent.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined appeals against a Designated Court (TADA) judgment that convicted three men for the murder of Additional Collector L.D. Arora under the IPC and acquitted them of TADA charges. The key issues were the admissibility of confessional statements made by co‑accused under TADA s.15 against an accused (Babloo) who was not charged under TADA, the sufficiency of other evidence to sustain his conviction, the interpretation of TADA provisions, and compliance with the mandatory sanction requirement of s.20A(1). The Court held that, by virtue of s.12 and the amended s.15, a confession recorded under TADA is admissible against any co‑accused tried in the same trial, even if that co‑accused is not charged under TADA, and that the confessions were corroborated by independent evidence. It also held that the SP of the CBI could validly give the sanction required under s.20A(1). The prosecution failed to prove the requisite intent to cause terror, so the TADA charges were rightly dismissed, but the IPC convictions and life sentences were upheld. The appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a confessional statement made under TADA s.15 by a co‑accused is admissible against Babloo, who was not charged under TADA
If the confessional statement is excluded, whether other evidence is sufficient to convict Babloo under IPC s.302 read with s.120B
Whether the special nature of the TADA Act requires a distinct mode of statutory interpretation
Whether the mandatory requirement of prior approval under TADA s.20A(1) was complied with
Whether the convictions of K.K. Saini and Manjit Singh (Mange) under the IPC are sustainable on the record
Whether the Designated Court was justified in acquitting all accused of the TADA offences

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 2(b)
Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946s. 3
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 30
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 1208, s. 120B, s. 302, s. 302/34
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987s. 12, s. 15, s. 20A, s. 3(1), s. 3(2), s. 3(3)

Subjects

TADAconfession admissibilitySection 15Section 12Section 20AIPC murdercircumstantial evidenceterrorist intentdesignated courtstatutory interpretation

Judgment

- [2011) 1 S.C.R. 997

MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE A
v.
CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1778 of 2008 etc.)
JANUARY 25, 2011
B
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]

.,... ' TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES
PREVENTION ACT, 1987:
c
s., 12 - Designated Court -Jurisdiction of -Held.: By
virtue of s. 12 of the Act, the Designated Court may also try
any other offence with which the accused may be charged at
the same trial if the offence is connected with such other
offence and further if it is found that the accused has 0
committed any other offence under any other law, the
Designated Court may convict such person of such other
offence and pass any sentence authorized by the Act or such
other law for the punishment thereof-Interpretation of statutes.

s. 15 -Confession made to police officer - Held: E
Confessional statement made by a person u/s 15 shall be
admissible in the trial of a co-accused for offence committed
and tried in the same case together with the accused who
makes the confession -Confession of an accused can be
used against him as well as other co-accused even if they are F '
acquitted of offence under TADA Act.

. s.20-A(1) -Cognizance of offence -Held: Expression
"District SP" has been used in order to take the sanction of a
senior officer of the district, when the prosecution wants to G
record any commission of an offence under the Act -In the
instant case, investigation was entrusted to CBI, therefore, the
CBI SP could authorize the police to record the information
about the commission of the offence under the Act -TADA
997 H
998 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R.
....
A Rules, 1987 -r. 15 -Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946 s. 3

ss. 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) -Prosecution -Held: Section 3
gives due importance to the aspect of intent -A person can
be charged with s. 3(1) only when the prosecution has
8 established that the offence was committed with the intent to
awe the Government or to achieve one or other ends
mentioned in s. 3(1) -In the instant case, the prosecution has
not proved that the murder was committed with the intention
to cause terror -Intention of the accused in the instant case
was not to cause terror but to prevent information regarding
C another crime from being divulged -Designated Court was,
therefore, justified in dismissing the charges framed under the
Act -Penal Code, 1860 -ss.302, 302134 and 3021120-8.

PENAL CODE, 1860:
D
ss, 302, 302134 and 3021120-8 -Conviction based on
circumstantial evidence -Out of the three prosecuted for
assassination of an Additional Collector of Customs, two
charged with offences punishable under Penal Code and ss.
E 3(2) and 3(3) rlw s. 3(1) of TADA Act..., The third one was
extradited from Singapore and in view of Extradition Treaty
was charged only with ss. 302 and 120-8, /PC - Designated
Court convicting all the three accused of the offences
punishable u/ss. 302, 302134 and 3021120-8 /PC with
F imprisonment for life and acquitting the two accused of the
offences punishable under TADA Act - Held : The evidence
on record presents an unimpeachable evidence against the
accused, clearly indicating the modus operandi and the
motive - The Designated Court has rightly convicted and
sentenced the accused ulss 302, 302134 and 3021120-8 /PC
G -It also rightly acquitted the accused of the charges under
TADA Act - There is no illegality in the impugned judgment
- Te"orist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 -
ss.3(2) and 3(3) read withs. 3(1) "".""Evidence - Circumstantial
evidence.
H
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 999

EVIDENCE: A
1 Circumstantial evidence -Offences punishable ulss 3021
120-B /PC -Evidence against 'mastermind'l'kingpin' of
I criminal conspiracy -Appreciation of - Penal Code, 1860 -
SS. 3021120-8.
B
The appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1778 and .1844
of 2008 were prosecuted for offences punishable u/s :302,
-..+ . s. 302/34 and s. 120 IPC, and ss. 3(2) and 3(3) read With
3(1) of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,
1987 ands. 120 IPC, and the appellant in Criminal Appeal C
No. 1826/2008 was prosecuted for offences punishable
u/ss 1208, 302 and 302/34 IPC for assassination of the
Additional Collector of Customs of Allahabad, namely,
'LO' on 24-3-1993 at about 07-07 .15 p.m" During the
course of investigation, the Government of India with the D
consent of the Government of Uttar Prades~. entrusted
the investigation of the case to Central Bureau of
Investigation, which registered a case for an offence
punishable u/s 302 IPC. Subsequently, offences
punishable u/s 1208 IPC and ss. 3(2) and 3(3) read with E
s. 3(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1987 were added. The prosecution case
was that three persons namely 'MD' 'TS' and accused 'B'
(the appellant in Crl.A. No. 1826/2008) ente.red into a
criminal conspiracy to eliminate 'LO' to strike terror F
among the Customs officials with a view to prevent the
persons from passing on information about their
smuggling activities or their involvement in the Mumbai
serial blasts of 1993. Pursuant to this conspiracy hatched,
accused 'B' instructed co-accused 'KKS' and 'MS' to G
eliminate 'LO'. 'KKS' while in police custody, made a
confessional statement u/s 15 of the TADA Act, wherein
he confessed his own involvement as well as
involvement of others in the killing of 'LO'. The
confessional statement of 'MS' was also recorded on
H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A 11.07.2001 by S.P., CBI, Delhi. Accordingly, charge sheet
against 'KKS' and 'MS' was filed in the Designated .Court
both under the provisions of the IPC and the TADA Act
on 26.11.2001. Accused 'B' was arrested in Singapore on
21.04.1995 in response to look out notice issued by
· B Interpol, India. On the request of Government of India, he
was extradited by the Government of Singapore. In view
of the Extradition Treaty ~igned between the two
countries, 'B' was tried u/s 120-B and 302 IPC and no
. ....,
charge under the TADA Act was framed against him. The
c Designated Court (TADA) convicted accused 'KKS',
'MS'and accused 'B' of offences punishable u/ss. 302,
302/34 and 302 read with s. 1208 IPC and sentenced
each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay
a fine of Rs. 10,000/• . Accused 'KKS' and 'MS' both were
acquitted of the offences punishable u/ss. 3(2) and 3(3)
0
read with s. 3(1) of TADA Act. Aggrieved, the accused
filed the appeals. The State also appealed against
acquittal of the accused of offences punishable under
the TADA Act and for enhancement of the sentence.
E The questions for consideration of the Court were :
(i) Whether the confessional statement of the co-accused
was admissible against 'B', who was not charged under
the TADA Act; (ii) Apart from the confession of the co-
accused, whether there was any other evidence against
F accused 'B' to sustain the conviction and sentence u/s
302 read with s. 120-B IPC; (iii) Since the TADA Act is a
special statute enacted for a specific purpose and object,
whether the interpretation of provisions of the TADA Act
requires any specific mode of interpretation; (iv) Whether
G there was breach of mandatory requirements provided In
s. 20A(1) of the TADA Act while recording the confession
of an offence under the Act;· (v) Whether the conviction
of 'KKS' and 'MS' for the offences under the provisions
of the IPC were sustainable with the available evidence
H
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1001

on record; and (vi) Whether the Designated Judge A
_,,;.,
(TADA) y.ras justified in acquitting all the accused persons
of the offences charged and tried under the TADA Act.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: B

1. Case of accused 'B':
.....
1.1 By virtue of s. 12 of the TADA Act, the Designated
Court may also try any other offence with which the c
accused may, under the Code, be charged at the same
trial if the offence is connected with such other offence.
The language of s. 12 clearly states that in the course of
any trial under the TADA Act of any offence, if it is found
that the accused person has committed any other
....., D
offence either under this Act or any other law, the
Designated Court (TADA) may convict such person of
such other offence and pass any sentence authorized by
this Act or such other law, for the punishment thereof.
Section 15 of the TADA Act, after its amendment,
authorizes the Designated Court to use the confession E
statement of one accused against another accused only
..,.. when the co-accused is charged in the same case along.·
with the confessor and is tried together with the
confessor in the same case. The language of these two
Sections is clear and unambiguous. It is well settled F
principle of law that the jurisdiction to interpret a Statute
can be invoked when the same is ambiguous. In the
instant case, accuse 'B' was not charged under the TADA
Act, but tried in the same trial along with 'KKS' and 'MS',
-y who were tried under the TADA Act. [para 15, 35 and 38] G
(1023-E; 1036-F; 1037-D-F]
Nasiruddin and Ors. v. Sita Ram Agarwal, 2003 ( 1 )
SCR 634 =
(2003) 2 SCC 577; Dadi Jagganadhan v.
Jammulu Ramulu and Ors.• AIR 2001 SC 2699; Feroze N.
H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R.

A Dotivalaz v. P.M Wadhwani and co., (2003) 1 SCC 14; Union
of India v. Harsoli Devi, 2002 ( 2 ) Suppl. SCR 324 = (2002) ~

7 sec 273 9 - relied on
Standard Chartered Bank and Ors. v. Directorate of
Enforcement and ors. AIR 2005 SC 2622; The Assistant
B
Commissioner, Assessment-II, Bangalore and Ors. v.
Valliappa Textiles Ltd. and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 86 -referred
to. .-+--

Quebec Railway, Light Heat & Power Co. v. Vandray, AIR
c 1920 PC 181 - referred to.

Union of India v. Elphinstone Company Ltd., 2001 (1)
SCR 221 =(2001) 4 SCC 139, Whirpoo/ of India v. ES/
Corporation, (2000) 3 SCC 185, Mohd. Ali Khan v. CW/, 1997
D (2) SCR 658 = (1997) 3 sec 511 - cited
-"("
1.2 In the case of Kartar Singh*, the Constitution
Bench of this Court held thats. 15 of the TADA Act was
playing the role- of s. 30 of the Evidence Act, which makes
the confession of an accused admissible in evidence
E against its maker as well as other co-accused in a
criminal trial. The main concern while making such
confession admissible is to test the veracity of the
confession, as the incriminated co-accused does not get
the opportunity to cross-examine the maker. However,
F such evidence must be corroborated in order to
determine the guilt of a person. In the event, independent
evidence supports the confessional statement then there
is no harm in relying upon the confession adding further
to the independent incriminating evidence. [para 46]
G [1042-A-C]
*Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1994 ( 2 ) SCR 375 =
(1994) 3 sec 569 - relied on

1.3 The confessional statement made by a person u/
H s 15 of the TADA Act shall be admissible in the trial of a·
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1003

co-accused for offence committed and tried in the same A
..,.,.._ case together with the accused who makes the
confession. It is settled law that confession of an accused
can be used against him as well as other co-accused
even if they are acquitted of offences under the TADA Act.
(para 33 and 48] (1042-E-F; 1035-G-H] B

Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto vs. State of Gujarat,
2005 (1 ) SCR 408 =
(2005) 2 SCC 409; Baba Peer Paras
_.... · Nath vs. State of Haryana (1996) 10 SCC 500; State vs.
Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253; S.N. Dube vs. N.B. Bhoir, (2000) C
2 SCC 254; Jameel Ahmed vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004
SC 588 and Esher Singh vs. State of A.P. 2004 (2 )
SCR 1180 =
(2004) 11 sec 585 - relied on.
1.4 In any case, it would lead to absurdity for a court
to rely on confessions of the maker against himself, and D
--.., not against another person, when such other person
features prominently in the confessional statement, in a
joint trial of offences for the same criminal act, especially
in circumstances when there · is independent
incriminating evidence. [para 47] (1042-D-E] E

2.1 Section 20A (1) of TADA Act commences with the
words "notwithstanding anything", hence it is a non-
obstante clause. The phrase "District SP" has been used
in order to take the sanction of a senior officer of the said
district, when the prosecution wants to record any F
commission of an offence under the. Act,· the reason
appears to be that the Superintendent of Police of the
District is fully aware of necessity to initiate the
proceedings under the stringent criminal law like the
-~-
TADA Act. In the instant case, the State Government, in G
exercise of the power conferred by s. 3 of the Delhi Police
Special Establishment Act, 1946, has handed over the
·investigation to CBI. The Superintendent of Police, CBI,
has authorized his subordinate officer to record the
H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A confessional statements of the two accused, namely,
'KKS' and 'MS', after following the procedure prescribed
under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Since
investigation was done by CBI, the Superintendent of
Police could authorize the Police to record the
B information about the commission of the offence under
the Act. [para 52 and 54] [1044-B; 1044-F-H; 1045-A]

In Ashwini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose and Anr. AIR
1952 SC 369; Vishin N Khanchandani & Another v Vidya .+
C Laxmidas Khanchandani & Another, 2000 ( 2 ) Suppl. SCR
=
415 (2000) 6 sec 724 - referred to

2.2 In the instant case, the cognizance/'prior
permission' was granted by the S.P. of CBI. It was at the
behest of the State Government, the case was transferred
D to the CBI and, therefore, the distinction between District
Superintendent appointed by the State concerned and
the Superintendent of CBI has hardly any relevance. After
a careful consideration of the submission on the question
of equation of rank, in matters concerning national
E security, as is the case of terrorist acts, the Centre and
an autonomous body functioning under it would be better
equipped to handle such cases. Therefore, 'prior
approval' by the SP of CBI would adequately satisfy the
requirements u/s 20A(1). There is no prejudice caused to
F the accused as a result of the authorization being granted
by the SP of the CBI. If the whole investigation process
is annulled, on the basis of what at its worst, appears to
be a technical flaw, it would result in the purport of the
statute being ignored. Furthermore, the safeguards
provided u/s 15 of the TADA and the rules made
G thereunder are complied with while recording the
confession statement; and no prejudice is caused to the
accused. [paras 56, 57 and 59] [1045-E-H; 1046-C-D;
1047-A]

H Ahmad Umar Saeed v. State of U.P 1996 ( 9 ) Suppl.
MANJIT SINGH@ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1005

SCR 53 = (1996) 11 SCC 61; Gurdeep Singh alias Deep v. A
,..., State(Delhi Administration), 1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 693 =
2000(1) sec 498; s.N Dube v. N.B Bhoir, (2002) 2 sec 254
- relied on.
3.1 As regards, the evidence against accused 'B' B
independently, the prosecution has examined PW-30, PW-
87, PW-68 ..From the evidence, it can be established that
..... ,
accused 'B' was living in the house of PW-87 in Nepal.
He had the phone number 410564 at his disposal. He not
only knew that accused 'KKS' and 'MS' were in
Allahabad, but also knew the purpose for which they
c
were in Allahabad. This is clear from the testimony of PW-
30. From the evidence of PW-68, who was Telecom
Department at the relevant date, and the phone bills, it is
clear that phone calls were made from the phone number
---, 410564 to the phone number 622452, the phone of Hotel D
Finero. On a perusal of the phone bills, it is clear that the
phone calls were made at the times which have been·
indicated by the confessional statements of accused
'KKS' and 'MS'. Hence, the part of the confessional
statements in question have been corroborated by the . E
other evidence. The evidence on record, without
considering the confessional statements, is strong
....,.. enough to create serious doubts about the conduct of
/
accused 'B' in this matter. [para 63] [1048-C-F]
F
3.2 Merely because the owner of the car, which was
used in the crime, is not examined by the prosecution, it
does not weaken the case of the prosecution. In fact, the
car was recovered on the information furnished by co-
accused 'KKS'. This would clearly establish the
G
prosecution case that the car bearing No.ONH-8440 was
used in committing the offence alleged against the
accused. Minor discrepancies, if any, would not be fatal
to the entire case of tile prosecution. [para 63] [1048-F-
H; 1049-A]
H
'·

· 1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A 3.3 The role played by accused 'B' in the instant case
is that of a "king pin". The possibility of having direct ..._
evidence against a "king pin" is rather low. In most cases,
it may be circumstantial. What is to be seen is the chain
of events that the prosecution is expected to prove can
B be linked to the evidence incriminating accused 'B'. [para
65] [1049-C]

3.4 It has been consistently held by this Court that
,+
where the guilt of a person squarely rests on
C circumstantial evidence, then the inference of guilt can
be justified only when all the incriminating facts and
circumstances are found to be in coherence of each
other and incompatible with the innocence of the
accused. The circumstances from which, such inference
is to be drawn, must be shown to be closely connected
D to the facts which are sought to be proved. When the
matter depends on the conclusions to be drawn from
such circumstances, then the cumulative effect of the
circumstances must be to negate the possibility of
innocence in any manner. [para 66] [1049-D-F]
E
State of UP v. Satish, 2005 (2 ) SCR 1132 = (2005) 3
SCC 114; Liyakat v. State of Uttranchal, 2008 Cri LJ 1931
(SC); Swamy Sharaddananda v. State of Kamataka, 2007 (7
) SCR 616 =2007 (3 ) SCR 507 = (2007) 12 sec 288; -
F State of Goa v. Sanjay Thekaram, (2007) 3 SCC 755 - relied
on
3.5 From the evidence on record, it can safely be
inferred that accused 'B' was the mastermind of the whole
incident and co-accused 'KKS' and 'MS' committed the
G offence at the behest of accused'B'. There is
independent incriminating evidence against accused 'B',
even if the confessional statement of co-accused is
eschewed. [para 67] [1049-G-H; 1050-A]

H
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1007

4. Case of accused 'KKS' and 'MS' : A
......
4.1 Co-accused 'KKS' has, u/s 15 of the TADA Act,
confessed to the crime. His confession was recorded by
SP, CBI (P.W 47). He was fully made aware of the
cons~quences of making a confessional statement. He B
has stated that he went to Nepal on accused 'B's behest
where he met co-accused 'MS'. He further stated that he.
.... was given the task to kill 'LO'. He also mentions that he
was chosen specifically to open fire as he had previously
committed four murders. He stated that accused 'B'
provided co-accused 'MS' with Maruti car ONH - 8440, a
c
9 mm pistol, several cartridges and Rs.10,000 to 12,000/-
for this purpose. On the morning of 23-3-1993, co-
accused 'KKS' and 'MS' checked into Hotel Finero in
Allahabad under the assumed· names of 'AKS' and 'HS'
respectively. Subsequently, they received a phone call D
~ from accused 'B' from Nepal who told them that they
would meet one 'AB' who would help them in the task.
Subsequently, 'AB' met co-accused 'KKS' and 'MS' in
their room. They examined the area and planned how to
execute the task of killing the victim 'LO'. On the following E
morning, they received a phone call from accused 'B'
from Nepal who asked them to finish the task as the
.__.
..... victim was to leave for Bombay to reveal information
.. regarding smugglintJ of arms and explosives used in the
Bombay bomb blasts. 'AB' told them the time of arrival F
:j of victim 'LO'. They took their respective positions. 'KKS'
shot three times at the victim and escaped to the place
--;
I
where 'MS' was waiting. Both met 'AB' and exchanged
J vehicles. They went back to the Hotel, checked out and
left for Nepal. [para 69, 70] [1050-0-E; 1051-A-B] G
--...(

..,., , 4.3 The testimony of co-accused 'MS' is substantially
similar to that of co-accused 'KKS'. Merely because the
confessional statement of both the co-accused is more
\
or less similar, it cannot be said they are neither normal
•,.,._I. H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A nor natural which would vitiate the probative value of
such confessional statement. [para 71] [1051-E-F]

4.4 Subsequently,· both the co-accused 'KKS' and
'MS' retracted their confessional statements before the
Designated Court and have categorically denied knowing
8
each other or accused 'B'. They have also denied ever
having gone to Hotel Finero, or the Colony of the
deceased etc. They have stated that the CBI has prevailed
.+
upon the witnesses produced on behalf of the
prosecution to give false evidence against them.
C However, a confessional statement given u/s 15 shall not
be discarded merely for the reason that the same has
been retracted. [paras 72-73] [1052-A-C]

Ravinder Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 ( 3 ) SCR
D 622 = (2002) 9 SCC 55; State of Maharashtra v. Bharat
Chaganlal Raghani, 2001 ( 3 ) · SCR 840 = (2001) 9 SCC
1-relied on

4.5 In the instant case, the accused were sent to the
E CMM, Delhi the very next day and they neither alleged that
the confession was fabricated, nor that they had been
tortured. In the light of these. circumstances, due
credence is to be given to the confession. [para 75] [1053-
E-F] .

F 4.6 It would be prudent to examine the authenticity
of a confession on a case to case basis. Section 15 and
the rules made thereunder prescribe certain guidelines '
- which if ensured can, to a large extent, point towards
the fact that the confession is truthful and voluntary.
G However, it must not be overlooked that the TADA Act
prescribes a deviation from the conventional criminal
jurisprudence. As a court of record, this Court is bound
to keep in mind situations where despite the procedure
being followed, the testimony so obtained u/s 15 is
H coloured by suspicion and doubt regarding its veracity.
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1009

Hence, albeit the procedure is followed, it would be A
judicious to look into whether the testimony is
c:orroborated by the .evidence presented by the
prosecution. The life and liberty of a person are at stake
and no effort should be spared in such circumstances to
see that justice is done. [para 77] [1053-H; 1054-A-E] B

4.7 The confessional statements of 'KKS' and 'MS'
are corroborated.by the documentary evidence, which are
_.. marked in the evidence by the prosecution. Exhibit D-20/
Ka 2 is the notebook maintained by Hotel Finero and C
·proves the entry of Maruti car DNH - 8440 against
accused 'KKS's assumed name, 'AKS' on 23.3.1993.
Exhibit D-19 is the hotel register and proves that 'KKS'
and 'MS' signed in it under fictitious names. Both 'KKS'
and 'MS' have been recognized by the employees of the
Hotel Finaro. The testimony of PW-1, the Hotel Manager, D
P.W-44, the waiter, and PW 60 corroborates the fact that
the accused stayed in the Hotel during the relevant time
and were met by 'AB'. The hand writing of the accused
in the register has also been proved by the detailed report
of PW-43, Sr. Scientific Officer, produced as Exhibit-D-27. E
The car used for committing the crime has been
recovered at the instance of accused 'KKS'. The copy of
the Cash Memo seized from the petrol pump Exhibit- D
22/ Ka 27 and the Customs Receipt [D 37/28, Ka 76)
corroborates the alleged journey from Krishna Nagar, . F
Nepal to Allahabad and back. The statement issued by
the Nepal police reveals that Car bearing No. DNH - 8440
entered Nepal through Krishna Nagar customs and was
allowed to stay for a period of one week on payment of
Rs 700 Nepal Currency as customs duty. Further, the G
printouts of call logs on telephone number 622452
installed in Hotel Finero (Exhibits D 38/40 and D 36/2), the
report of part of investigation in Nepal (Exhibits D 37, D
37/28) read with the statements of PW 87 (land lady of
accused 'B' in Nepal), PW - 68, the Deputy Fiscal Officer, H

' >
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 1 S.C.R.
'

A Telecom Dept, Nepal corroborate the confessional
statement of accused 'KKS' and 'MS' to a substantial
extent. PW 87 has recognized accused 'B' in court and
stated that he was staying at the house rented out by her
in Krishna Nagar, Nepal and that the telephone number
B from which calls were made to Room No 7 in Hotel
Finero, where 'KKS' and 'MS' were staying, was installed
in the same house where accused •a• was staying. PW
21 Inspector MTNL identified co-accused 'KKS' in court
. .+
.and stated that he had previously been involved in the
c transfer of a phone in the name of one 'AKS'. He stated
that 'KKS' and 'AKS'are one and the same. 'AKS'is the
assumed name used by 'KKS' even at Hotel Fin~ro. 'KKS'
had, in his confession, stated that he had obtained the
driving license of 'AKS' and substituted the photograph
therein with his own. [para 78] [1054-F-H; 1055-A-H]
0
4.8 PW-30, who was declared hostile by prosecution ,-
stated on o.:th that he knows accused 'B' from his
University days. He admits to have been involved in
solving a few land disputes on accused 'B's behalf. He
E has visited 'B' in Nepal a couple of times. During the time
when 'LO' was murdered, he was in Allahabad. He stated
that he received calls from both accused 'MS' and 'B' on
March 23 and 24. It was stated by the witness that in the
course of conversation, 'MS' revealed that he had
F obtained his number from accused 'B'. 'MS' stated that
he was in Allahabad and that 2-3 people had come with
him. Subsequently, he has stated that accused 'B' called
him in relation to a property dispute that he was assisting
him with. PW-30 in his cross examination, has denied
G having told the investigating officer that 'MS' had told him
that he had come to Allahabad to kill 'LD'. However, he ._.
admitted that he told the CBI officer that accused 'B' told
him that 'MS' was there on a specific task and that is the
reason why he should desist from meeting him. [para 79]
H [1 056-A-E]
MANJIT SINGH @MANGE v. CBl;THROUGH ITS S.P. 1011

4.9 The evidence of PW-30, despite the fact that the A
--.> prosecution has chosen to treat him as a hostile witness,
need not be totally disregarded. Its admissibility should
be tested in the light of the surrounding circumstances
and other evidence. The testimony of PW-30 provides a
vital link between the various participants in this crime, B
the fact that co-accused 'KKS' and 'MS' were in Allahabad
on a 'specific task' assigned to them by accused 'B', who
was in Nepal. [paras 80- 81] [1056-F-G; 1057-A-B].

In Radha Mohan Singh vs. State of UP, 2006 Cri LJ C
1121 (1125) (SC) - relied on.

4.10 Taken together, the evidence on record presents
an unimpeachable evidence against the accused, clearly
indicating the modus operandi and the motive. The
· Designated Judge (TADA) was justified in convicting and D
-, sentencing 'KKS' and 'MS' for the offences u/s 302/34 IPC.
[para 81, 82] [1057-B-D] ·

5.1 Section 3 of the TADA Act gives due importance
to the aspect of 'intent'. The person who is alleged to be E
involved in a terrorist act can be charged u/s 3(1) only
when the prosecution has been successful in
establishing that the same was committed with the intent
to awe the government or to achieve .one or the other
ends mentioned u/s 3(1). The Designated Court, while
dismissing the charges under the TADA Act, relied on the F
decision of this court in the case of Hitendra Vishnu
Thakur *. This Court made a distinction between the
incidence of terror as a consequence of a particular act
and causing terror being the sole intent of the same act.
It is only in case of the latter that the provisions of s. 3(1) G
are attracted. [para 85] [1059-C-E]

*Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994
( 1 } Suppl. SCR 360 = (1,994) 4 SCC 602; State of West
Bengal vs. Mohammed Khalid 1994 ( 6 ) Suppl. SCR 16 =H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A (1995) 1 SCC 684; Corpus Juris Secundum (A
Contemporary Statement of American Law, Vol 22 at pg
116) - referred to

5.2 The instant case concerns the murder of 'LO'. The
prosecution has not been successful in proving t~at this
8
particular murder was committed with the intention to
cause terroi:"Terror could have been caused as a
consequence of the act. The prosecution has stated that
the main intention behind the murder of 'LO' was to
prevent that the names of 'MD', 'TS' and others involved
C in smuggling of arms and explosives would not come to
light during the investigations that followed the Bombay
blasts. It is, therefore, evident that the intention of the
accused in the instant case was not to cause terror but
to prevent information regarding another crime from
D being divulged. In the light of these facts, the Designated
Court was justified in dismissing the charges framed
under the TADA Act. There is no illegality in the judgment
under appeal. [para 88 and 89] [1060-G-H; 1061-A-D]

E Case Law Reference:
2003 ( 1 ) SCR 634 relied on para 38
AIR 1952 SC 369 referred to para 52
(2000) 2 sec 254 relied on para 58
F
2004 (2) SCR 1180. relied on para 31
2005 (1 ) SCR 408 relied on para 19
1994 ( 2 ) SCR 375 relied on para 34
G AIR 2001 SC 2699 relied on para 39
AIR 2005 SC 2622 referred to para 43
(2003) 1 sec 14 relied on para 40

H
MANJIT SINGH@ MANGEv. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1013

2002 ( 2 ) Suppl. SCR 324 relied on para 50 A
J AIR 1920 PC 181 referred to para 42
AIR 2004 SC 86 referred to para 44
2000 ( 2) Suppl. SCR 415 referred to ·para 53 .8
1996 (9) Suppt SCR 53 relied on para 55
1999 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 693 relied on para 57
2002 ( 4) Suppl. SCR 416 rel!ed on para 40
c
2001 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 60 relied on para 39
2001 ( 1 ) SCR 221 cited para 50
1997 ( 2) SCR 658 cited para 50
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal D
No. 1778 of 2008.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2008 of the Ld.
Designated Court (TADA}, Kanpur in TADA Criminal Case No.
3A of 1994. E
WITH

Criminal Appeal No. 1826 of 2008.

Criminal Appeal No. 1844 of 2008. F

Criminal Appeal No. 1336 of 2009.

Criminal Appeal No. 1347-1348 of 2009.

P.P. Malhotra, ASG K.T.S. Tutsi and A. Sharan, Gaurave G
'-<'. Bhargava, Raj Kamal, Ravi Prakash, Niraj Gupta, lrshad
Ahmad, Amit Anand T., A.K. Singh, Sanchit, Tulika Prakash,
Sheeba Khan, M. Khairati, Ranjana Narayan, Naresh Kaushik,
T.A. Khan, A.K. Sharma and 8. Krishana Prasad for the
appearing parties. H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H.L. DATIU, J. 1. These appeals are preferred against
the common judgment and order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Designated Court (TADA), Kanpur dated
B 30.9.2008 in TADA Crl. Case No.3 of 1994 (State vs. K.K.
Saint), TADA Crl. Case No. 3A of 1994 (State vs. Manjit
Singh@ Mange) and TADA Crl. Case No.1 of 1995 (State
vs. Om Prakash Shrivastava @ Babloo). By the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence, K.K. Saini, Manjit
Singh@ Mange (in short, "Mange") and Om Prakash
C Shrivastava @ Babloo (in short, "Babloo") have been convicted
for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, Section 302
read with Section 34 IPC and Section 302 read with Section
120B IPC respectively. They have been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each in
D respect of these offences and in default, undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of six months each. K.K. Saini and
Mange are both acquitted of charges under Sections 3(2) and _
3(3) read with Section 3(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [hereinafter referred to as,
E "TADA Act"]. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.

2. The accused have filed appeals under Section 19 of the
TADA Act against the impugned judgment and order passed
F by the Designated Court (TADA), Kanpur. State of Uttar
Pradesh through CBI has also filed appeals against the
judgment and order passed by the Designated Court (TADA)
acquitting the accused persons for the offences under Sections
3(2) and 3(3) read with Section 3(1) of the TADA Act and further
G for the enhancement of sentence imposed under the provisions
of IPC to death sentence in view of the seriousness of the .,_..
offence and the purpose for which it was carried out.

3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows :-

H Shri L.D. Arora, Additional Collector of Customs,
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1015
[H.L. DATTU, J.]

Allahabad was assassinated on 24.03.1993 at about 07-07.15 A
_.,,, p.m. in the area of P.S. Cantonment, Allahabad. The nephew
of the deceased Dr. Satish Arora (PW-2) had lodged the First
Information Report at P.S. Cantonment, Allahabad at 20.15 p.m.
According to his report, on 24.03.1993, Shri L.D. Arora
(Deceased) reached his house at HIG flat No.9, ADA Colony, B
Circular Road, Allahabad by his car. He had gone to his uncle's
house on 24.03.1993 at about 07-07.15 p.m. ·He saw his
. -t uncle's car parked at the same place where he used to park
his car regularly. After knocking the door, he had entered his
uncle's house. Soon after his arrival, the neighbour told him that c
something has happened to his uncle. He immediately rushed
to the place where his uncle had parked his car. Upon arrival
at the spot, he saw his uncle was lying unconscious on the
driving seat in a pool of blood. He immediately took his uncle
to Swaroop Ram Medical Hospital with the help of people from D
the neighborhood. At the hospital, his uncle was declared
-,- brought dead. The investigation was initially taken up by the
Cantonment Police Station, Allahabad.

4. The prosecution has further stated that the post mortem
of the dead body was carried out by Dr. A.K. Shrivastav of MLN E
Hospital on 25.03.1993, who prepared a post mortem report,
which was duly countersigned by Dr. S.L. Diwan, Senior
..___ Surgeon of the hospital. The post mortem report revealed that
· there were three entry wounds caused by fire arm and
corresponding three exit wounds on the upper parts of the body F
below the pinna of right ear, below and behind the tip of right
mastoid procure and the last was 2 ems below it. The cause
of death was ascertained to be ante-mortem head injuries
caused by bullets. The time of the death was ascertained to
be 7.55 p.m. on 24.03.1993. G
~
5. When the investigation by the State Police was still
going on, the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry
of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Government of
India vide Notification No.228/48/93'-A.V.D.-JJ dated
H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201"i) 1 S.C.R.

A 12.07 .1993 issued with the consent of the Government of Uttar
Pradesh, entrusted the investigation of the case to CBI, pursuant
to which R.C. (10) (S)/93-S.J.U.V/C.B.L, 1I/New Delhi dated
13.07.1993 under Section 302 of IPC was registered in SIC.II
Branch of CBI. During the course of investigation, offences
B under Section 120-B of IPC and Sections 3(2) and 3(3) read
with Section 3(1) of the TADA Act were added with the
permission of Superintendent of Police, CBI, New Delhi.

6. The prosecution further states that one Mohd. Dosa,
Tahir Shah @ Tappu and Babloo entered into criminal
C conspiracy to eliminate L.D. Arora to strike terror among the
customs officials with a view from preventing anyone from
passing on information about their smuggling activities or their
involvement in the Bombay Blasts on March 12, 1993. Pursuant
to this conspiracy hatched, Babloo instructed K.K. Saini and
D Mange on 20.03.1993, who were with him in Krishna Nagar,
Nepal, to assassinate the deceased L.D. Arora. Mange was -r--
further informed that one Alimuddin @ Baba would be available
at Hotel Finero, Allahabad. Babloo gave them '10-12,000/-, one
9 mm Pistol, 12 cartridges and a Maruti Car, bearing
E registration No. DNH 8440, to accomplish the task. Thereafter,
K.K. Saini and Mange left Nepal with the above mentioned fire
arms in the said car. They reached Allahabad and checked into
the above mentioned Hotel Finero in Room No. 7 and entered
their names as AK. Singh and Harjeet Singh respectively in
F the hotel register. Thereafter, Alimuddin also checked into
Room No. 5 of the same hotel along with a lady named Smt.
Arshi. On the same day, there was a meeting between K.K.
Saini, Mange and Alimuddin in Room No.7 to chalk out the
strategy to kill the deceased on the morning of 24.03.1993, i.e.
G the next day. All three of them reached the office and residence
of the deceased on a scooter and conducted a thorough survey. ,.,
Babloo further contacted K.K. Saini over telephone installed at
the hotel in Allahabad, instructing him to kill the deceased that
very day as he might leave for Bombay on the next day to
H disclose information he had gathered regarding the Mumbai
MANJIT SINGH @MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1017
[H.L. DATIU, J.]

serial blasts of 1993. Persuant to these instructions, at around A
~--- 6.45 p.m., K.K. Saini, Mange and Alimuddin waited near the
ADA Colony, Circular Road, Allahabad for the arrival. of the
deceased in his car. As soon as the car of the deceased was
spotted in the vicinity, all three of them took up positions and
when the deceased entered the ADA Colony through the main B
gate in the eastern boundary wall and was about to park his .
car, K.K. Saini took out his pistol and fired three shots at the
deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained fatal
injuries and collapsed in his seat.

7. It is further case of the prosecution that during the course
c
of the investigation, they recovered three empty cartridges and
one lead from the car of the deceased and one lead from the
ground, where the car was parked. The Ballistic Expert of
F.S.L., Lucknow opined that the three empty cartridges were
fired from the same 9 mm pistol. Investigations disclosed that D
.....,..
Mohd. Dosa had entered into criminal conspiracy with Tahir
Shah and Babloo to kill the deceased L.D. Arora so that their
involvement in the Bombay Bomb Blasts were not revealed.
After killing the deceased, the information was relayed to
Babloo and later, Mange and K.K. Saini returned to Nepal on E
25.03.1993 by crossing the lndo-Nepal border at Krishna
Nagar by paying an amount -of Rs. 600/- in Nepal currency
""-...r-
towards octroi/tax for vehicle No.DNH 8440. The course of
investigation further led to information that one Virendra Pant
and Sanjay Khanna met Babloo in Al-Rigu Apartments in Dubai F
where Babloo made an extra judicial confession that he had
got the deceased killed through the concerned people as he
had information about the activities of Mohd. Dosa and Tahir
Shah especially in the smuggling of ROX, weapons and
•-..< explosives used in the Bombay Bomb Blasts. For this job, he G
was paid Rs. 6,0 0,0001- by Tahir Shah, out of which Rs.50,000/
- was given to K.K. Saini.

8. Prosecution further states that K.K. Saini, while in police
custody, during the period from 06.04.1994 to 04.05.1994
H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R.

A made a confessional statement under Section 15 of the TADA
Act, wherein he confessed his own involvement as well as ......
involvement of others in the killing of L.D. Arora. Based on his
confession and information, the Maruti Car bearing No. DNH
8440, the vehicle used in the commission of the offence, was
B also recovered. Later, K.K. Saini refused to join the Test
Identification Parade and his refusal was recorded by Shri
Rakesh Kapoor, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The
confessional statement of Mange was also recorded on
11.07.2001 by S.P., CBI, Delhi. Accordingly, charge sheet
c against K.K. Saini and Mange was filed in the Designated
Court both under the provisions of the IPC and the TADA Act
on 26.11.2001, which was registered as Criminal Case No.3
of 1994 and Criminal Case No.3A of 1994. It is also relevant
to notice that Babloo was arrested in Singapore on 21.04.1995
D in response to look out notice issued by Interpol, India. On the
request of Govt. of India, he was extradited by the Govt. of
Singapore. The Extradition Treaty sigr;ied between the two
countries provided that the person being extradited could only
be tried for criminal acts recognized as offences in both the
countries. Since, there was no law in Singapore which
E corresponds to the TADA Act, though Babloo was extradited,
he could only be tried under Section 120-B and 302 of the IPC
and, therefore, no charge under Section 3 of the TADA Act was
framed against Babloo. After completion of investigation, the
investigating agency filed charge sheet before the Designated
F Court (TADA) for the offences under Section 302 IPC against
· K.K. Saini and Mange for offences under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of the IPC and against Babloo under Section 302
read with Section 120B IPC. K.K. Saini and Mange were also
charged under Section 3(2) and 3(3) read with Section 3(1) of
G the TADA Act. To prove the charges, the prosecution had
examined 88 witnesses in the leading criminal case No. 3 of
1994 and 85 witnesses in criminal case No. 3A of 1994 during
the trial and relied upon various documents including
confessional statements recorded during investigation. All the
H
MANJIT SINGH@MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1019
[H.L. DATIU, J.]

accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence A1
· and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case.

9. The Designated Court (TADA) had framed nearly eleven
issues for its consideration. The Court, relying on Section 12
of TADA Act, has held that Babloo was rightly charged for an B
offence under Section 302 read with Section 1208 of the IPC
and tried him jointly with the accused K.K. Saini and Mange
and for technical reason, he could not be charged under the
TADA Act. The Court has further held that since the
investigation was handed over to Superintendent of Police, CBI,
by the State of Uttar Pradesh by issuing notification, prior C
approval from S.P., CBI, was sufficient compliance of. Section
20A of the TADA Act. On the issue of the admissibility of the
confessional statement of the accused K.K. Saini and Mange
against the co-accused Babloo, the learned Designated Judge,
after noticing the language employed in Section 12 and Section D
15 of the TADA Act, has concluded that merely due to
technicality in the Extradition Treaty, Babloo was not charged
under TADA Act. However, in the light of the provisions and the
decisions of this Court, the confessional statements were held
to be admissible against the co-accused even when he was E
not charged under the TADA Act, but was tried jointly for
offences under other law by the Designated Court (TADA). The
Designated Court (TADA) did not find any merit in the
·contention that the confession statements of K.K.Saini and
•. ,Mange were not recorded voluntarily. The Designated Judge F
·(TADA), after carefully considering the evidence on record, has
:, held that the prosecution has sucdessfully proved the recovery
'of Maruti Car No. DNH 8440 on the information· furnished by
. K.K. Saini. As regards the issue of proving charges of
. conspiracy under Section 120B of IPC, it was held that from G
.the facts and circumstances and prosecution evidence, it was
clear that the three accused namely, K.K. Saini, Babloo and
Mange hatched conspiracy to kill L.D. Arora and all the three
accused were ·involved in the conspiracy. Hence, all the three
accused were held liable for conviction for the charge under H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A Section 1208 read with Section 302 of the IPC. As regards
the last issue of proving the guilt of all the three accused and
...l..
the sufficiency of the evidence other than co.nfessional
statement, it was observed that the prosecution has proved the
same by producing both oral and documentary evidence. The
B Designated Court (TADA), after considering the material
evidence on record, including the Post Mortem Report and the
statements made by the accused persons under Section 313
of the Criminal Procedure Code, has concluded that the
prosecution has adduced sufficient, reliable oral and
c documentary evidence, which corroborates the confessional
statement of both the accused namely, K.K. Saini and Mange
and further concluded that there is enough evidence, other than
the confessional statement against Babloo, which proves the
prosecution case in so far as charges framed under the
provisions of the IPC.
D
10. We have heard Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior
counsel for Mange and Babloo and Shri Amrendra Sharan,
learned senior counsel for K.K. Saini and Shri P.P.Malhotra,
learned Additional Solicitor General for the CBI.
E
11. As these appeals are preferred against the judgment
and order of learned Designated Court (TADA) under Section
19 of the TADA Act, therefore, we have to consider these ..._,
appeals both on facts as well as on question of law for our
conclusion and decision.
F
12. The learned senior counsel Shri K.T.S. Tulsi and Shri
Amrendra Sharan submitted that K.K. Saini and Mange were
charged under the TADA Act and. not Babloo. It is argued that
since there was no terror caused in the society by the acts of
G the accused, they cannot be charged under Section 3(1) and
3(2) of the TADA Act and, therefore, they could only be tried
for committing offence of murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
Further, it was argued that prior approval was required to be
taken from the Superintendent of Police· of the District, as
H required under Section 20-A of the TADA Act, to try the
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1021
[H.L. DATIU, J.]

accused for the offences under the TADA Act and the A
~ Superintendent of Police, CBI was not the competent authority
to give such permission. It is further submitted that the
confessional statements of K.K. Saini and Mange were
recorded in complete defiance of provisions of the TADA Act
and the rules framed thereunder and that mandatory provisions B
have not been followed. Therefore, the confessional statement
is to be completely eschewed from consideration. It is also
7-· contended that there is no sufficient and reliable evidence
against Babloo except the confessional statement of K.K. Saini
and Mange and the prosecution has therefore failed to prove c
the conspiracy between the accused tried in the present case.
Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel, who also appears for
Babloo, submitted that the confessional statement of the co-
accused K.K. Saini and Mange recorded under Section 15 of
the TADA Act cannot be used against Babloo as he is not D
:-,- charged under the provisions of the TADA Act and also
because no prior approval from the prescribed authority, as
. required under Section 20A of the TADA Act, had been
obtained. He also submitted that the penal provisions require
to be strictly construed. In support of his submission, the·learned
E
senior counsel has placed reliance on several decisions of this
Court. We will make reference to the submissions and the
.... __..._ decisions while considering the issues raised in these appeals .

13. Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor
General, submitted that when the investigation is transferred to F
the CBI, with the consent of the State, the CBI takes over further
investigation of the case. Therefore, Superintendent of Police,
CBI, was competent to record the confession made by a person
and the same is admissible in the trial of such person for an
,_...._ offence under the TADA Act. He further submits that the G
aforesaid officer, before recording the confession under Section
15(1) of the TADA Act, had followed the safeguards provided
under sub Section (2) of Section 15 of the TADA Act. It is
further submitted that the confessional statement of K.K. Saini
and Mange recorded before S.P., C.8.1., was admissible in H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 1 S.C.R.

A evidence vide Section 15 of the TADA Act, which provides for
the recording of the confessional statements before the police J...
officer, not lower in the rank than Superintendent of Police, and
it is made admissible even against co-accused, abettor or
conspirator and the bar under the Evidence Act and Criminal
B Procedure Code will not come into play. It was further submitted
that the confessions made by K.K. Saini and Mange are
admissible as substantive evidence against Babloo. It was also
submitted by the learned ASG that there was sufficient evidence
~
adduced by the prosecution to support the correctness of the
c confessional statements of the two co-accused persons. He
further submitted that the Section takes special care to ensure
that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act
without the previous sanction of the Inspector General of Police
or the Commissioner of Police. The safeguard so provided
under the Act would protect the rights of an accused of any
D
offence under the Act.
-y
14. The issues that would arise in these appeals filed by
appellants-accused for our consideration and decision are as
under:-
E
(I) Whether the confessional statement of the co-
accused is admissible against Babloo, who was
not charged under the TADA Act. ~'

(II) If for any reason, confession of the co-accused is
F eschewed against Babloo, whether there is any
other evidence against him to sustain the conviction
and sentence under Section 302 read with Section
120-B IPC.

G (Ill) Since the TADA Act, being a special statute
enacted for a specific purpose and object, whether _,._,
the interpretation of provisions of the TADA Act
requires any specific mode of interpretation.

(IV) Whether there is breach of mandatory requirements ·
H
MANJIT $1NGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1023
[H.L. DATTU, J.]

provided in Section 20A(1) of the TADA Act while A
.J.
recording the commission of an offence under the
Act.
.
(V) Whether the c0nviction of K.K. Saini and Mange for
the offences under the provisions of the l.P.C. are
sustainable with the available evidence on record. B

(VI}. Whether the learned Designated Judge (TADA)
was justified in acquitting all the accused persons
for the offences charged and tried under the TADA
Act. , C

Case of Babloo

15. The object and purpose of the TADA Act is explained
by this Court in number of decisions. Therefore, it is not
necessary for us to repeat and reiterate the same. We will only D
notice the relevant provisions which are necessary for the
purpose of this case.·

16. Section 12 of the TADA Act speaks of the power of
the Designated Courts with respect to other offences. By virtue E
of this Section, the Designated Court may also try any other
offence with which the accused may, under the Code, be
,_
charged at the same trial if the offence is connected with such
other offence. Sub-section (2) further empowers the Designated
Court that in the course of the trial under the TADA Act of any F
offence, if it is found that the accused person has committed
any other offence under the TADA Act or any rule made
thereunder or under any other law, the Designated Court may
. convict such person of such other offence and ·pass any
sentence authorized under this Act or such rule or such other
law for the punishment thereof. A Designated Court constituted· G
under Section 9 of the TADA Act or a transferee Designated
under Section 11 of the TADA Act is vested with the jurisdiction
to try all the offences punishable under the provisions of the
TADA Act. While trying such offence, if the accused is charged H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 1 S.C.R.

A for offence punishable under the provisions of any other law
connected with such offence, the Designated Court has power
to try the accused in such offence also during trial, if it is found
that the accused has also committed other offence punishable
under any other law, the Designated Court can convict the
8 accused for such offence also. The Designated Court can pass
any sentence, on conviction of the accused, as authorized in
the respective statute for punishment of such offence.

17. Section 15 of the TADA Act commences with a non
obstinate clause by stating that notwithstanding anything
C contained in the IPC or the Evidence Act, the confession made
by a person before a police officer not lower in rank than a
Superintendent of Police and recorded by such Police Officer
in writing etc., shall be admissible in the trial of such person,
co-accused, abettor or conspirator for an offence under the
D TADA Act or rules made thereunder. The proviso appended
to the Section carves out an exception to the main Section. It
says that the cunfession made by a person accused of an
offence under the Act or the rules framed thereunder can be
used against co-accused, abettor or conspirator, provided he
E is charged for any offence under the Act or the rules framed
thereunder and tried in the same case together with the
accused. It was contended by Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, that Babloo was
not charged under the provisions of the TADA Act or the rules - ;

framed thereunder: Therefore, the confession statement made
F by co-accused i.e. K.K. Saini and Mange cannot be used
against Babloo and if the confessional statement of the co-
accused is eschewed, then there is no other evidence to
implicate Babloo for the offence alleged to have been
committed under the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the
G conviction and sentence imposed by the Designated Court
cannot be sustained.

18. The main question before us is whether the
confessional statement made by K.K. Saini and Mange can be
used against co-accused Babloo in the light of the fact that
H
- MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1025.
[H.L. DATTU, J.]
Babloo was not charged and tried for any offence under the 'A
J. TADA Act or the rules framed thereunder.
19. This issue was raised before the learned Designated
Judge (TADA). The learned Judge has answered the issue and
in his opinion, Babloo was not tried for offences under the B
TADA Act, only due to the extradition terms that were agreed
by Union of India with Singapore Government. He has further
stated that it was only due to this technicality that Babloo was
-r not tried for offences under the Act, though his actions fully
justified a trial for offences under the Act. It is this reasoning of
the learned Designated Judge that was commented and taken
c
exception to by learned senior counsel Shri K.T.S. Tulsi. We
have already noticed that the submission of the learned senior
counsel is that confession made by the co-accused charged
under the TADA Act cannot be used against' co-accused who
is not charged and tried under the TADA Act. The learned 0
senior cou.nsel, while relying on the observations made by this
Court in the case of Baba Peer Paras Nath vs. State of
Haryana, (1996) 10 SCC 500, in aid of his submission, would
further contend that this Court in the case of State vs. Nalini,
(1999) 5 SCC 253 and the Constitution Bench decision of this E
Court in the case of Prakash Kumar@Prakash Bhutto vs.
State of Gujarat, (2005) 2 SCC 409, did not deal with the
; .-
admissibility of a confession statement made by an accused
under the TADA Act against co-accused not charged under the
Act orthe rules framed thereunder and therefore not applicable F
to the facts of the case.

20. Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor
General, submits that all the three accused were being tried in
the same case by the Designated Court (TADA). Therefore, the
G
·~ confession of the accused K.K. Saini and Mange, charged for
the offence under the TADA Act, could be used against Babloo,
who was charged for the offence under Sectjon 302 read with
Section 120B of the IPC. The learned ASG would further
contend that Section 15 of the Act is a rule of procedure and
H
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R.

A no one has any vested rights in the procedural provisions.
-
21. We are of the view that the issue raised needs to be
appreciated in the light of several decisions of this Court and
principles of statutory interpretation. For appreciating the
contention of the learned counsel Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, firstly we
8
need to notice the provision which empowers the police officer
to record the confessional statement of the accused.

22. Section 15 of the TADA Act was amended by Act No.
43 of 1993 with effect from 22.05.1993. By this amendment,
C not only some changes are brought in the main Section but also
the proviso is added to sub-section (1) of Section 15. The
amended provision reads:

"15. Certain confessions made to police officers to be
D taken into consideration - (1) Notwithstanding anything in
the Code or in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872),
but subject to the provisions of this section, a confession
made by a person before a police officer not lower in rank
than a Superintendent of Police and recorded by such
police officer either in writing or on any mechanical device
E
like cassettes, tapes or sound tracks from out of which
sounds or images can be reproduced, shall be admissible
in the trial of such person or co-accused, abettor or
conspirator for an offence under this Act or rules made -·
thereunder:
F
Provided that co-accused, abettor or conspirator is
charged and tried in the same case together with the
accused.

G (2) The police officer shall, before recording any
confession under sub-section (1), explain to the person
making it that he is not bound to make a confession and
that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against
him and such police officer shall not record any such
H
- MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1027
[H.L. DATTU, J.]

confession unless upon questioning the person making it,
he has reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily."
A

-1
23. Under the amended provision of Section 15 of the
TADA Act, the confession of a co-accused recorded under
Section 15 of the TADA Act is made admissible subject to B
certain conditions. The confession recorded under Section 15
of the TADA Act by a co-accused could be made use of
against that accused provided the co-accused is charged and
tried in the same case together with the accused. Section 15
of the TADA Act is amended by Act No. 43 of 1993, which
clearly stipulates that the confession recorded under Section
c
15 of the TADA Act is admissible only if the confessor is
charged and tried in the same case together with the co-
accused. After the amendment of 1993, the addition of the
words 'co-accused, abettor or conspirator is charged or tried
together with the accused' clearly shows that the confession D
.__,.-· could be considered ,by the Court only when the co-accused,
who makes the confession, is charged and tried along with the
other accused.'

24. This Court in the case of Kartar Singh vs. State of E
Punjab, {1994) 3 sec 569 considered the validity of Section
15 of the TADA Act. While considering the question whether

.-- the procedural law is oppressive and violates the principles of
just and fair trial offending Article 21 of the Constitution and is
discriminatory violating the equal protection of laws offending F
Article 14 of the Constitution, and therefore, whether Section
15 of the T,A.DA Act needs to be struck down, this court held
Section 15 of the TADA Act stands good on the test of
constitutional validity as the classification of offenders and
offences to be tried by the Designated Court under the TADA
G
l_....i...._
. Act or by the Special Courts under the Act of 1984 are not left
to the arbitrary and uncontrolled discretion of the Central Govt.,
but the Act itself has made a delineated classification of the
offenders as terrorists and disruptionists in the TADA Act and
the terrorists under the Special Courts Act, 1984 as well as
H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A classification of offences under both the Acts. This Court also
stated that the Act also provides for procedural safeguards to
-
· be followed by the police officers with regard to mode of
recording the confession and, therefore, Section is not liable
to be struck down as it does not offend either Article 14 or 21
B of the Constitution of India. The Court further observed as
under:-

"255. As the Act now stands after its amendment
consequent upon the decision of Section 21 (1 )(c), a
confession made by a person before a police officer can
c be made admissible in trial of such person not only against
the person but also against the co-accused, abettor or
conspirator, provided that co-accused, abettor or
conspirator is charged in the same case together with the
accused, namely the maker of the confession. The present
D position is in conformity with Section 30 of the Evidence
Act"
25. The scope of Section 15 of the TADA Act was
considered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in State vs.
E Nalini (supra). The three learned Judges were pleased to
deliver three separate judgments. We shall extract the relevant
portion of the judgments. While answering this question, K.T.
Thomas, J. opined:

"81. Section 15 of TADA enables the confessional
F statement of an accused made to a police officer specified
therein to become admissible "in the trial of such a
person". It means,.if there was a trail of any offence under
TADA together with any other offence under any other law,
the admissibility of the confessional statement would
G continue to hold good even if the accused is acquitted
under TADA offences."

• ... The correct position is that the confessional statement
duly recorded under Section 15 of TADA would continue
H to remain admissible as for the other offences under any
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1029
[H.L. DATTU, J.]

other law which too were tried along with TADA offences, A·
no matter that the accused was acquitted of offences under
TADA in that trial;'' (Para 82)

• ... In other words, after the amendment a Designated
Court could not do what it could have done before the 8
amendment with the confession of one accused against
a co-accused. Parliament has taken away such
. empowerment. Then what is it that Parliament did by
-,..-- adding the. words in Section 15(1) and by inserting the
proviso? After the amendment the Designated Court could C
use the confession of one accused against another
accused only if two conditions are fulfilled:

(1) The co-accused should have been charged in
the same case along with the confessor.
D
(2) He should have been tried together with the
confessor in the same case." (Para 90)

"92. While considering the effect of the non obstante limb
we can see that Section 15(1) of TADA was given
.protection from any contrary provision in the Evidence Act.
But what is it that Parliament did through
Section 15(1) regarding a confession made to a police
officer? It has only made such confession "admissible" in
the trial of such person or the co-accused etc.•
F
"... It must be remembered that Section 15(1) of TADA
does not say that a confession can be used against a co-
accused. It only says that a confession would be admissible
in a trial of not only the maker thereof but a co-accused,
abettor or conspirator tried in the same case." (Para 97) G

•..-i.__ 26. In other words, Thomas, J. took the view that the
confession of another person is weak evidence and hence the
·confession made by one co accused was admissible in·
evidence against another, but would be conclusive only if the
HI .
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A same was corroborated, even if such person was acquitted of
charges under the TADA Act in joint trial. It must be noted that
-L
the majority view is not in concurrence with this opinion.

27. Now we will notice the observations made by D.P.
.B Wadhwa, J.

"415. When Section 15 TADA says that confession of an
accused is admissible against a co-accused as well, it

c
would be substantive evidence against the co-accused as
well, it would be substantive evidence against the co-
accused. It is a different matter as to what value is to be
-
attached to the confession with regard to the co-accused
as that would fall in the realm of appreciation of evidence."

28. The learned Judge further went on to observe that the
D confession made by the accused can be used as a substantive
piece of evidence against another accused in the light of
Section 15 of the TADA Act. This view was supported by
S.S.M. Qadri, J. in a concurring opinion. In other words, this
Court took the view that even if a person is acquitted of the
E TADA charges, the confession recorded under Section 15 of
the TADA Actwould be admissible.

29. The majority view in this case is that confessional
statement is a substantive piece of evidence and can be used
·~.
against the co-accused. Th.e decision in Nalini's case was
F considered in S.N. Dube vs. N.B. Bhoir, (2000) 2 SCC 254.
The Court observed that Section 15 of the TADA Act is an
important departure from the ordinary law and must receive that
interpretation which would achieve the object of that provision
and not frustrate or truncate it and that correct legal position is
G that a confession recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act
is a substantive piece of evidence and can be used against a ~'

co-accused also, if held to be admissible, voluntary and
believable.

30. In Jameel Ahmed vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2004
H
MANJIT SINGH@MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1031.
[H.L. DATTU, J.]

SC 588, it is observed: A
" ................ Herein it is relevant to note that S.15 of TADA
Act by the use of non-obstante clause has made
confession recorded under S.15 · admissible
notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence
B
Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also specifically
provides that the confession so recorded shall be
admissible in the trial of a co-accused for offence
committed and tried in the same case together with the
accused who makes the confession."
c
31. In Esher Singh vs. State of A.P. (2004) 11 SCC 585,
it is stated:

"19. Crucial words in the provision are "charged and tried".
The use of the expression "charged and tried" imposes 0
cumulative conditions. Firstly, the two persons who are the
accused and the co-accused in the sense used by the
legislature under Section 15, must be charged in the same
. trial, and secondly, they must be tried together. Kalpnath
Rai case has been overruled in Nalini case making the E
position clear .that the confession of a co-accused is
substantive evidence.

20. Section 2(bY of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(in short "the Code") defines "charge" as follows:
F
"2 .. (b) 'charge' includes any head of charge when the
charge.contains more heads than one;"

The Code does not define ·what a charge is. It is the
precise formulation of the specific accusation made G
against a person who is entitled to know its nature at the
earliest stage. A charge is·. not an accusation made or
information given in the abstract, but an accusation made
against a person in respect of an act committed or omitted
in vio.lation of penal law forbidding or commanding it. In
'other words, it is an accusation made against a person in H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 1 S.C.R.

A respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by
him. A charge is formulated after inquiry as distinguished
from the popular meaning of the word as implying
inculpation of a person for an alleged offence as used in
Section 224 IPC.
B
21. Chapter XVI I of the Code deals with "charge". Section
211 thereof deals with content of charge. Section 273
appearing in Chapter XXlll provides that evidence is to be
taken in the presence of the accused. The person
becomes an accused for the purpose of trial after the
c charges are framed. The expression used in Section 15
of TADA is "charged and tried". The question of having a
trial before charges are framed does not arise. Therefore,
the only interpretation that can be given to the expression
"charged and tried" is that the use of a confessional
D statement against a co-accused is permissible when both
the accused making the confessional statement and the
co-accused are facing trial after framing of charges. In
State of Gujarat v. Mohd. Atik this position was highlighted.
Unless a person who is charged faces trial along with the
E co-accused the confessional statement of the maker of the
confession cannot be of any assistance and has no
eYidentiary value as confession when he dies before
completion of trial. Merely because at some stage there
was some accusation, unless charge has been framed and
F he has faced trial till its completion, the confessional
statement, if any, is of no assistance to the prosecution so
far as the co-accused is concerned. In fact, in para 10 in
Mohd. Atik case it was observed that when it was
impossible to try them together the confessional statement
G has to be kept out of consideration.

22. So far. as .application of Section 30 of the Evidence
Act is concerned, in Nalini case this question was
examined and it was held in sec pp. 306-07, paras 90
and 91 as follows:
H
MANJIT SINGH @MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1033
[H.L. DATTU, J.]

"90. But the amendment of 1993 has completely wiped out A
. ..J.
the said presumption against a co-accused from the
statute-book. In other words, after the amendment a
Designated Court could not do what it could have done
before the amendment with the confession of one accused
against a co-accused. Parliament h.as taken away such B
empowerment. Then what is it that Parliament did by
adding the words in Section 15(1) and by inserting the
proviso? After the amendment the Designated Court could
use the confession of one accused against another
accused only if two conditions are fulfilled: c
(1) The co-accused should have been charged in the
same case along with the confessor.

(2) He should have been tried together with the
confessor in the same case. D
··~
Before amendment the Designated Court had no such
restriction as the confession of an accused could have
been used against a co-accused whether or not the latter
was charged or tried together with the confessor. E
91. Thus the amendment in 1993' was a clear climbing
down frorn a draconian legislative fiat which was in the field
·~
of operation prior to the amendment insofar as the use of
one confession against another accused was concerned.
The contention that the amendment in 1993 was intended F
to make the position more rigorous as for a co-accused
is, therefore, untenable."

32. A two Judge Bench of this Court, doubting the
correctness of the decision in State vs. Nalini (supra), had G
\ ..--(, referred the matter to three Judge Bench of this Court. Since
Nalini's case (supra) was decided by three Judge Bench of this
Court, the three Judge Bench had referred the matter to
Constitution Bench in Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto vs.
State of Gujarat, (2005) 2 SCC 409. The primary question
H·
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R.

A referred to the Bench, as noticed by the Constitution Bench itself
is, as to whether confessional statement duly recorded under
Section 15 of the TADA Act would continue to remain
admissible as for the offences under any other law which were
tried along with TADA offences under Section 12 of the Act,
B notwithstanding the fact that the accused was acquitted of
offences under the TADA Act in the said trial.

"18. The questions posed before us for the determination
are no more res integra. In our view, the same have been
set at rest by the three-Judge Bench decision rendered in
c Nalini. The rigours of Sections 12 and 15 were considered
in Nalini case and a finding rendered in paras 80, 81 and
82 (SCC p. 304) as under:

"80. Section 12 of TADA enables the Designated Court
D to jointly try, at the same trial, any offence under TADA
together with any other offence 'with which the accused
may be charged' as per the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Sub-section (2) thereof empowers the Designated Court
to convict the accused, in such a trial, of any offence 'under
E any other law' if it is found by such Designated Court in
such trial that the accused is found guilty 'of such offence.
If the accused is acquitted of the offences under TADA in
such a trial, but convicted of the offence under any other
law, it does not mean that there was only ,a trial for such
F other offence under any other law.

81. Section 15 of TADA enables the cO,nfessional
statement of an accused made to a police offic~r specified
therein to become admissible 'in the trial Qf such a
person'. It means, if there was a trial of any offei\lce under
G TADA together with any other offence under any ~ther law,
the admissibility of the confessional statemer'!t would >-,
continue to hold good even if the accused is aequitted
under TADA offences.

H 82. The aforesaid implications of Section 12 vis-a-vis

•
MANJITSINGH@MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1035
[H.L. DATTU, J.]

Section 1.5 of TADA have not been adverted to in Bilal A
Ahmed case. Hence the observations therein (at SCC
p. 434, para 5) that

'while dealing with the offences of which the appellant was
convicted there is no question of looking into the B
confessional statement attributed to him, much less relying
. on it since he was acquitted of all offences under TADA'
+- cannot be followed by us. The correct position is that the ·
confessional statement duly recorded under Section 15 of
TADA would continue to remain admissible as for the C
other offences under any other law which too were tried
along with TADA offences, no matter that the accused was
acquitted of offences under TADA in that trial."(emphasis
supplied)
D
We are in respectful agreement with the findings recorded
by a three-Judge Bench in Nalini case.

40. For the reasons aforestated, we are of the view that
· the decision in Nalini case has laid down correct law and
we hold that the confessional statement duly recorded E
under Section 15 of TADA and the Rules framed
thereunder would continue to remain admissible for the
offences under any other law which were tried along with
TADA offences under Section 12 of the Act,
notwithstanding that the accused was acquitted of offences F
under TADA in the same trial."

33. In view of the decisions rendered by this Court in the
aforementioned cases, it is settled law that the confession of
an accused can be used against him as well as other co- G
accused, even if they are acquitted for offences under the TADA
Act.

34. In the present case, the question that needs to be

H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 1 S.C.R.

A answered is the admissibility of such confession against the
co-accused not charged under the TADA Act. Shri K.T.S. Tulsi
brought to our notice the decision of this Court in the case of
Baba Peer Paras Nath (supra), wherein the issue that was
considered was whether the confessional statement of the co-
B accused is admissible against co-accused if not tried for
offences under TADA Act. This Court distinguished the
Constitutional Bench decision of Kartar Singh vs. State of
Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 stating that the observation of this +
Court in that decision is not about the admissibility of the
c confessional statement recorded under Section 15 of the
TADA Act against an accused when such accused is tried with
the other co-accused, abettor or conspirator but such accused
is not charged for any offence under the TADA Act. Thus, the
principle in this case which was upheld was that confessional
D statement recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act was
admissible against co-accused, abettor or conspirator provided
such accused tried with the other co-accused or abettor or
conspirator in the same trial in respect of offence under the
TADA Act and not otherwise.

E 35. In the present case, Babloo was not charged under the
TADA Act, but tried in the same trial along with K.K. Saini and
Mange, who were tried under the TADA Act. The question
raised by Shri K.T.S. Tulsi is whether it is permissible to use
the confession statement of K.K. Saini and Mange against
F Babloo, when he is not charged for the offence under the TADA
Act to convict him, especially, when there is no other evidence
available against him.

36. In the case of Baba Peer (supra), this Court held that
in view of the language employed in Section 15 of the TADA
G Act, the confession recorded under the aforesaid provision is "'- '
admissible only if the co-accused is charged and tried in the
same case together with the confessor.

37. In the case of Nalini (supra), the Court held that the
H
MANJIT SINGH @.MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1037
[H.L. DATTU, J.]

confession recorded shall be admissible in the trial of a co- A
......:.-
accused for offence committed and tried in the same case
together with the accused that makes the confession. Plain
language of Section 15 of the TADA Act excludes the
application of the provisions of the Evidence Act and the
Criminal Procedure Code. In view of the language of Sub- B
Section (1) of Section 15, a confession of an accused is made
. admissible evidence as against all those charged and tried with
+- him. This view of the Bench of three learned Judges in Nalini's
case is approved by Constitution Bench of this Court in
Prakash Kumar's case. The Constitution Bench decision is c
binding on us.

38. The language of Section 12 clearly states that in the
course of any trial under the TADA Act of any offence, if it is
found that the accused person has committed any other offence
either under this Act or any other law, the Designated Court D
-..i
(TADA) may convict such person of such other offence and pass
....: any sentence authorized by this Act or such other law, for the
--;
punishment thereof. Section 15 of the TADA Act, after its
amendment, authorizes the Designated Court to use the
confession statement of one accused against another accused E
only when the co-accused is charged in the same case along
with the confessor and is tried together with the confessor in
-.J.-i'~
the same case. The language of these two Sections is clear
and unambiguous. It is well settled principle of law that the
jurisdiction to interpret a Statute can be invoked when the same F
is ambiguous. This Court in Nasiruddin and Ors. v. Sita Ram
Agarwal, (2003) 2 SCC 577, observed that:-

"38. The court's jurisdiction to interpret a statute can be
invoked when the same is ambiguous. It is well known that
G
~
~---- in a given case the Court can iron out the fabric but it
cannot change the texture of the fabric. It cannot enlarge
the scope of legislation or intention when the language of
provision is plain and unambiguous. It cannot add or
subtract words to a statute or read something into it which
H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A is not there. It cannot re-write or recast legislation. It is also
necessary to determine that there exists a presumption
that the legislature has not used any superfluous words. It
is well-settled that the real intention of the legislation must
be gathered from the language used. It may be true that
B use of the expression 'shall or may' is not decisive for
arriving at a finding as to whether statute is directory or
mandatory. But the intention of the legislature must be
found out from the scheme of the Act It is also equally well-
settled that when negative words are used the courts Will
c presume that the intention of the legislature was that the
provisions are mandatory in character."

39. In the case of Dadi Jagganadhan v. Jammu/u Ramulu
and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 2699, a Constitution Bench of this court
observed:-
D
"13 .........The settled principles of interpretation are that the
Court must proceed on the assumption that the legislature
did not make a mistake and that it did what it intended to
do. The Court must, as far as possible, adopt a
E construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the
legislature.' Undoubtedly if there is a defect or an omission
in the words used by the legislature, the Court would not
go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. The
Court could not add words to a statute or read words into
F itwhich are not there, especially when the literal reading
produces an intelligible result. The Court cannot aid the
legislature's defective phrasing of an Act, or add and mend,
and, by construction, make up deficiencies which are
there."

G 40. In the case of Feroze N. Dotivalaz v. P.M Wadhwani .... t

and co., (2003) 1 sec 14, this court stated:- '
"Generally, ordinary meaning is to be assigned to any word
or phrase used or defined in a statute. Therefore, unless
H there is any vagueness or ambiguity, no occasion will arise
. MANJIT SINGH @ MANG.E v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1039
[H.L. DATTU, J.]

. to interpret the term in a manner which may add something A
---.... to the meaning of the word which ordinarily does not so
mean by the definition itself, more particularly, where it is
a restrictive definition. Unless there are compelling reasons
to do so, meaning of a restrictive and exhaustive definition
would not be expanded or made extensive to embrace B
things which are strictly not within the meaning of the word
as defined."
."
4 h In the case of Union of India v. Harsoli Devi, (2002)
7 SCC 273, a Constitution Bench of this court laid down:-
c
"4. Before we embark upon an inquiry as to what would
be the correct interpretation of Section 28-A, we think it
· appropriate to bear in mind certain basic principles of
interpretation of statute. The rule stated by Tindal, CJ in
Sussex Peerage case, (1844) 11 Cl &F.85, still holds the D
field. The aforesaid rule is to the effect:

"If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and
unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to
expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense.
E
The words themselves do alone in such cases best declare
the intent of the lawgiver,"

It is a cardinal principle of construction of statute that
when language of the statute is plain and unambiguous,
then the court must give effect to the words used in the F
statute and it would hot be open to th'e courts to adopt a
hypothetical construction on the ground that such
construction is more consistent with the alleged object
and policy of the Act. In Kirkness v. John Hudson & Co.
, Ltd. 1955 (2) ALL ER 345, Lord Reid pointed out as to G
~.-.A,
what is the me,aning of "ambiguous" and helq that - "a
provision is not ambiguous merely because it contains
a word which in different context is capabie of different
meanings and it would be hard t.o find anywhere a
/ sentence of any length which does not contain such a H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A word. A provision is, in my judgment, ambiguous only if
it contains a word or phrase which in that particular context
is capable of having more than one meaning." It is no
doubt true mat if on going through the plain meaning of
the language of statutes, it leads to anomalies, injustices
. B and absurdities, then the court may look into the purpose
for which the statute has been brought and would try to
give a meaning, which would adhere to the purpose of
the statute."

42. In Quebec Railway, Light Heat & Power Co. v.
c Vandray, AIR 1920 PC 181, it had been observed that the
Legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything
in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to the
legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons.
Similarly, it is not permissible to add words to a statute which
D are not there unless on a literal construction being given a part
of the statute becomes meaningless. _.._-·

43. In the case of Standard Chartered Bank and Ors. v.
Directorate of Enforcement and ors. AIR 2005 SC 2622, it was
E stated:-
"It is true that all penal statutes are to be strictly construed
in the sense that the Court must see that the thing charged
as an offence is within the plain meaning of the words used ~ •.
and must not strain the words on any notion that there has
F been a slip that the thing is so clearly within the mischief
that it must have been intended to be included and would
have included if thought of. All penal provisions like all other
statutes are to be fairly construed according to the
legislative intent as expressed in the enactment."
G
This court further added:- ~" .
"55. The rule of interpretation requiring strict construction
of penal statutes does not warrant a narrow and pedantic
construction of a provision so as to leave loopholes for the
H
- MANJIT SINGH @·MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1041
[H.L DATIU, J.]

offender to escape [See : Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State A
of Maharashtra: 1976CriLJ 1527]. A penal statute has to
also be so construed as to avoid a lacuna and to suppress
mischief and to advance a remedy in the light of the rule
in Heydon's case. A commonsense approach for solving
a question of applicability of a penal statute is not ruled B
out by the rule of strict construction. [See : State of Andhra
Pradesh v. Bathu Prakasa Rao MANU/SC/0177/1976 :
1976CriLJ1387 and also G. P. Singh on Principles of
Statutory Interpretation, 9th Edition, 2004, Chapter 11, .
Synopsis 3 at pgs. 754 to 756)." c
44. A Three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of The
Assistant Commissioner, Assessment-II, Bangalore and Ors.
v. Valliappa Textiles Ltd. and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 86, laid
down:-
D
........ "22 ..................Though Javali (supra) also refers to the
general principles of interpretation of statute the rule of
interpretation of criminal statutes is altogether a different
cup of tea. It is not open to the court to add something to
or read something in thE;i statute on the basis of some E
supposed intendment of the statute. It is not the function

,_ of this Court to supply the casus omissus, if there be one.
As long as the presumption of innocence of the accused
prevails in this country, the benefit of any lacuna or casus
omissus must be given to the accused. The job of plugging . F
the loopholes must strictly be left to the legislature and not
assumed by the court."

45. ft is pertinent to note that this Court in the case of Nalini
(supra) had taken the view that the confessional statement of
'",_),..__, one of the accused can be used as conclusive evidence against G
another accused if they are both tried in the same trial. This
has been so held despite the fact that in case of a confessional
statement, the incriminated accused cannot cross examine the
maker.
H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R.

A 46. When the validity of Section 15 of the TADA Act was
challenged in the case of Kartar Singh (supra), the Constitution
Bench of this Court held that Section 15 of the TADA was
playing the role of Section 30 of the Evidence Act, which makes
the confession of an accused admissible in .evidence against
B its maker as well as other co-accused in a criminal trial. The
main concern while making such confession admissible is to
test the veracity •of the confession, as the incriminated co-
accused does not get the opportunity to cross examine .the
maker. However, such evidence must be corroborated in order
c to determine the guilt of a person. In the event, independent
evidence supports the confessional statement then there is no
harm in relying upon the confession adding further to the
independent incriminating evidence.

47. In any case, it would lead to absurdity for a court to
D rely on confessions of the maker against himself, and not
against another persori, when such other person features
prominently in the confessional statement, in a joint trial of
offences for tbe same criminal act, especially in circumstances
when there is independent incriminating evidence.
E
48. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the
confessional statement made by a person under Section 15
shall be admissible in the trial of a co-accused for offence
committed and tried in the same case together with the
F accused who makes the confession.

49. The next argument of Shri K.T.S. Tulsi and Shri
Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel, is with regard to the
procedural irregularities in the investigation conducted by the
prosecution which, according to them, is not properly
G appreciated by the learned Designated Court. The learned
counsel contends that under Section 20A of the TADA, the
sanction of the District Superintendent of Police is required to
be obtained before the police record any information about the
commission of an offence under the TADA. Since the same has
H
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1043
[H.L. DATIU, J.]

not been obtained, the conviction of the accused cannot be A
sustained. In the instant case, according to the learned senior
counsel, the sanction has been obtained from the S.P., C.B.I.
It is urged that the Act does not envisage an officer of an
equivalent rank, but requires the sanction from the authority that
is envisaged in the Statute. It is further urged that the provisions B
of the TADA Act require to be strictly construed and interpreted,
and for this reason also, an. officer of S.P., C.B.I. would not
mean the Superintendent of Police of the District.
~-

50. The learned senior counsel reiies on several judgments
of this court in support of his submissions that penal provisions C
require to be strictly interpreted and we should not interpret the
plain language of the statute or that words having an ordinary
meaning cannot be given a different interpretation. It is also
brought to our notice that the plain and simple language of a
statute best describes the intention of the tegislature. The D
---.... decision on which reliance was placed are: Nasiruddin v. Sita
Ram Agrawal, (2003) 2 SCC 577, Firoz DotiWala v. P.M.
Wadwani, (2003) 1 SCC 433, Union of India v. Hansoli Devi,
(2002) 7 SCC 273, Dadi Jaganadham v. Jamulu Ramulu,
(2001) 7 SCC 71, Union of India v. Elphinstone Company E
. Ltd., (2001) 4 SCC 139, Whirpoo/ of India v. ES/ Corporation,
c2000) 3 sec 185, Mohd. Ali Khan v. cwt,
(1997) 3 sec
-*~ 511. .

·:1'·'
51. Section 20A of the TADA Act was inserted by Act No. F
43 of 1993. The. relevant portion of section 20A is as under:

"20A. Cognizance of offence. - (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code, no information about the
commission ofan offence under this Act shall be recorded
by the police without the prior approval of the District G
Superintendent of Police.

(2) ...... No court shall take cognizance of any offence
under this Act without the previous sanction of the
H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R..
-
A Inspector General of Police or as the case may be, the
Commissioner of Police."

52. Section 20A (1) of TADA Act commences with the
words "notwithstanding anything", hence it is a non-obstante
B clause. As regards non-obstante clause, a Constitution Bench
of this court in the case of Ashwini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda
Bose and Anr. AIR 1952 SC 369 opined:-

"lt should first be ascertained what the enacting part of the
section provides on a fair construction of the words used
C according to their natural and ordinary meaning, and the
non obstante clause is to be understood as operating to
set aside as no longer valid anything contained in relevant
existing laws which is inconsistent with the new enactment.·

D 53. In the case· of Vishin N Khanchandani & Another v
Vidya Laxmidas Khanchandani & Another, (2000) 6 SCC
724, this court laid down:-

"The non obstante clause is used to avoid the operation
and effect of all contrary provisions. But to attract the
E applicability of a non obstante clause, the whole of the
Section, the scheme, the objects and reasons for the
enactment of the Act must be kept in mind."
__ ,
54. We are of the view that the phrase "District SP" has
F been used in order to take the sanction of a senior officer of
the said district, when the prosecution wants to record any
commission of a offence under the Act, the reason appears to
be that the Superintendent of Police of the District is fully aware
of necessity to initiate the proceedings under the stringent
G criminal law like the TADA Act. In the instant case, the State
Government, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 ....
of the Delhi Police Special Establishment Act, 1946, has
handed over the investigation to CBI. The Superintendent of
Police, CBI, has authorized his subordinate officer to record the
H confessional statements of K.K. Saini and Mange after
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1045
[H.L. DATTU, J.]

following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules A
framed thereunder. Since investigation was done by CBI, in our
view, Superintendent of Police could authorize the Police to
record the information about the commission of the offence
under the Act.
B
55. In the case of Ahmad Umar Saeed v. State of U.P
(1996) 11 sec 61, a similar fact situation arose. In that case,
the accused contended that 'cognizance of the offence' as
--,.,--
required under Section 20A(1) were not followed as the FIR
was recorded by a Sub-Inspector of Police. The accused
therein were charged for multiple offences both under the Penal
c
Code and TADA as is the case in the present appeals. This
court held that Section 20A(1) does not prohibit the officer from
recording the complaint and instituting investigation as a
statutory right is conferred on him under the Code with respect
to non TADA offences. Hence if the charges are framed with D
~ regard to an act, which in the same transaction can be under
TADA and any other criminal provisions, then the mere fact that
the filing of FIR by anyone other than the District Superintendent
would not vitiate the whole process.
E
56. In the instant case, the cognizance/'prior permission'
was granted by the S.P. of CBI. The accused contended that
..... the District Superintendent appointed by the concerned State
Government cannot be equated to the post of Superintendent
of the Central Investigation Bureau who is appointed directly F
by the Central Government. We have been apprised of the fact
that it was at the behest of the State Government, the case was
transferred to the CBI and, therefore, this distinction has hardly
any relevance. After careful consideration of the submission on
the question of equation of rank, we are inclined to hold that in
G
·~ matters concerning national security, as is the case of terrorist
acts, the Centre and an autonomous body functioning under it
would be better equipped to handle such cases. Therefore,
'prior approval' by the SP of CBI would adequately satisfy the
requirements under Section 20A(1). We also note that there is
H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R.
...
A no prejudice caused to the accused as a result of t~e
authorization being granted by the SP of the CBI.

57. In the case of Gurdeep Singh alias Deep v.
State(Delhi Administration), 2000(1) SCC 498, the
confessional statement, after it was obtained under Section 15,
8
was not sent to a Chief Judicial Magistrate as is required under
Rule 15(5) oftheTADA Rules, 1987. Instead, the confessional
statement was forwarded the very next day to the Designated
Court. This court refused to interfere with the investigation
stating that no prejudice has been caused to the accused and
C that the whole investigating proces~ could not be vitiated
because of a mere technical flaw. Similarly, in the present
case, w.ith regard to non-compliance of Section 20A(1 ), if we
are to annul the whole investigation process, on the basis of
what at its worst, appears to be a technical flaw, it would result
D in the purport of the statute being ignored. Furthermore, we
take note of the fact that the safeguards provided under Section
15 of the TADA and· the rules made thereunder are complied
with while recording the confession statement.

E 58. In S.N Dube v. N.B Bhoir, (2002) 2 SCC 254, the
accused contended that the confession was obtained through
malafide as the person who recorded the evidence was the
Superintendent of Police [Shinde] who was investigating the
case. Reversing the finding of the trial court, this court at Para
F 28 observed:

"The learned trial Judge has also held that it was not fair
on the part of Shinde to record the confessions as he was ·
also supervising the investigation. Shinde has clearly.
stated in his evidence that he had made attempts to find
G out if any other Superintendent of Police was available for .......
recording the confessions and as others had declined to
oblige him he had no other option but to record them. We
see no illeg~Uty or impropriety in Shinde recording the
confessions even thoug~ h.e was supervising the
H investigation."
MANJIT SINGH@MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1047
[H.L. DATTU, J.]
59. In our view, since no prejudice is caused to the A
accused, we are unable to agree with the contention of Shri.
K.T.S. Tulsi and Shri Amarendra Sharan on this aspect of the
matter. Having considered the legal arguments advanced in
these appeals, now we will examine the evidence against
Babloo independently. B
60. Prosecution has examined Bharat Singh (PW-30), Smt.
lndu Singh (PW-87), Bhushal Lal Shreshtha (PW-68). Bharat
..,._ Singh (PW 30) has stated in his evidence that he knew Babloo
and was in Allahabad on the said day in connection with a
matter regarding Lochan Singh. He has further. stated that he c
got a call from Mange saying that he was in Allahabad along
with K.K. Saini, and then they discussed about meeting.
· Subsequently, he got a call from Babloo from Nepal. Babloo
told Bharat Singh that it was he who had given the phone
number of Bharat Singh to. Mange, and also told him not to D
~ meet Mange because Mange was in AJlahabad for important
werk. This is enough to establish that Babloo had the knowledge
that K.K. Saini and Mange were in Allahabad for a specific
' /
purpose.
E
61. Smt. lndu Singh (PW-87) was the owner of the house
where Babloo stayed in Nepal. She recognized Babloo when
she saw him in the Court and stated that it was the same person
who had stayed in her house during the said period. She has
stated that she had given the house on rent to Mirza Beg and
Rehman, who she came in contact with through the broker,
F
Salim. When asked why she did not object to the sub-letting of
. the house to Babloo, she was frank enough to state that the
only thing she cared about was the rent, which was duly paid .
. She stated that the telephone with number 410564 was in the
name of her son, Parbhajan Singh and the same was installed G
I>_~
in the house which was fented by Babloo. She also stated that
all the bills for that phone were paid by Babloo. She stated that
STD-ISO facility was not there on the number when the phone
connection was obtained, but was subsequently taken on
request by the tenant. H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 1 S.C.R.

A 62. Bhushal Lal Shreshtha (PW-68) has stated that he was
in the Telecom Department at the relevant date, and on request ·
made by the Nepal police, in the required format, he gave the
telephone bills for the number 410564. The telephone records
from the telephone number 410564 (being the telephone in
B Nepal, from which Babloo made calls) and 622452 (being the
telephone at Hotel Finero) has been annexed in evidence
before us [D 38/40 and D 36/2].

63. ·From the above evidence, it can be established that
C Babloo was living in the house of Smt. lndu Singh in Nepal. He
had the phone number 410564 at his disposal. He not only
knew that Mange and K.K. Saini were in Allahabad, but also
knew the purpose for which they were in Allahabad. This is clear
· from the testimony of Bharat Singh. From the phone bills, it is
clear to us that phone calls were made from the phone number
D 410564 to the phone number 622452, the phone of Hotel
Finero. On a perusal of the phone bills, it is clear that the phone .¥-
calls were made at the times which have been indicated by the
confessional statements of K.K. Saini and Mange. Hence, we
may safely conclude that the _part of the confessional statements
E in question have been corroborated by the other evidence. The
evidence that we have on record, without considering the
confessional statements, is strong enough to create serious
doubts about the conduct of Babloo in this matter. The learned
senior counsel Shri K.T.S. Tulsi submits that the prosecution
F has not examined the owner of the car bearing No.DNH 8440
. Shri Ramavar, who is the resident of Delhi, nor the transferee
in whose name the registration certificate had been standing
at the relevant point of time. In our view, merely because the
owner of the car is not examined by the prosecution, it does
G not weaken the case of the prosecution. In fact, car was
recovered on the information furnished by K.K. Saini, one of .... ·
the co-accused in the case. This would clearly establish the
prosecution case that the car bearing No.DNH-8440 was used
in committing the offence alleged against the accused. In our
H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R

A statement of co-accused. Hence, we reject the appeal of
Babloo.

Case of K.K. Saini and Mange

68. We now proceed to examine the evidence against K.K.
B Saini and Mange independently. It must be noted that the
witnesses here shall be referred to by the numbers assigned .
to them under Criminal Appeal No.3 of 1995. ~

69. With regard to K.K. Saini, it must be first mentioned
c that he has confessed to the crime under Section 15 of the
TADA Act. His confession was recorded by Shri. Sharad Kumar
SP, CBI (P.W 47). KK Saini was fully made aware of the
consequences of making a confessional statement.

70. The following are the details divulged in his
D confessional statement. He has stated that he went to Nepal
on Babloo's behest where he met Mange. He further stated that
he was given the task to kill L.D Arora by Babloo. He also
mentions that he was chosen specifically to open fire as he had
previously committed four murders. Thereafter, Babloo provided
E Mange with Maruti car DNH - 8440, a 9 mm pistol several
cartridges and '10,000 to 12,000/- for this purpose. On the
morning of 23rd March, 1993, K.K. Saini and Mange checked
into Hotel Finero under the assumed names of A.K. Singh and
Harjeet Singh respectively. Subsequently, they received a
F · phone call from Babloo from Nepal. Babloo told them over the
phone that they would meet Alimudeen @ Baba who would help
them in the task. Subsequently, Baba met K.K. Saini and
Mange in their room. Later in the day, Baba took him on a dark
grey Bajaj scooter to show him the office and the house of L.D.
G Arora. They examined the area and on their return to the hotel,
all three of them sat and planned how to execute the task of ..,.._ __ .
killing L.D. Arora. On the next day in the morning, they received
a phone call from Babloo from Nepal who asked them to finish
the task the very next day as L. D. Arora was to leave for
H Bombay to reveal information regarding smuggling of arms and
MANJIT SINGH@MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1051
. [H.L. DATTU, J.]

explosives used in the Bombay bomb blasts in the very same A
~ · year. K.K. Saini then.took Mange and showed the office and
house and they marked the escape routes. On their return to
the hotel, Baba came to the room and told them that they should
reach the place around 5.00 PM and that he would come in
Maruti car - DNH 8440. KK Saini stated that they left Hotel B
Finero around 5.00 PM. At around 6.45 - 7.00, Baba came
and told them that LO.Arora would arrive shortly. They waited
for his arrival and on seeing Arora's vehicle approach they took
their respective positions. When L.D. Arora was parking his car
alongside the Southern boundary wall, K.K. Saini emerged from c
his position near the stair case and opened fire three times at
short range. He escaped through the staircase and reached
Mange who was waiting near the scooter. They met Baba at
the agreed spot and exchanged vehicles. Subsequently, they
went back to Hotel Finero, checked out and left for Nepal the
0
very same evening. They crossed the Nepal border on 25th
morning after paying Customs duty for the car.

71. The testimony of Mange is substantially similar with that
of K.K. Saini. The learned senior counsel Shri Amrendra
Sharaffsubmits that the confessional statement of Mange was E
recorded nearly after eight years from the date of incident and
the confessional statement of both K.K. Saini and Mange is
verbatim the same. Therefore, it casts a serious doubt on the
alleged confessional statement. In our view, metely because the
confessional statement of both the accused is more or less F
similar, it cannot be said they are neither normal nor unnatural
which would vitiate the probative value of such confessional
statement. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this contention
of the learned senior counsel.

72. Subsequently both KK Saini and Mange retracted their - G
confessional statement before the Designated Court and have
categorically denied knowing each other or Babloo. They have
also denied ever having gone to.hotel Finero, ADA Colony etc.
They have stated that the CBI has prevailed upon the witnesses
H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A produced on behalf of the prosecution to give false evidence
against them. Keeping in view that the accused has retracted
their confession statement, the learned senior counsel Shri
K.T.S. Tulsi submitted that the confession of both KK. Saini and
Mange, alleged to be given under Section 15 of the TADA Act ~
B cannot be used since the prosecution has failed to adduce
sufficient corroborative evidence.

73. A confessional statement given under Section 15 shall
not be discarded merely for the reason that the same has been
C retracted. In Ravinder Singh v. State of Maharashtra, (2002)
9 sec 55, the accused was charged under the provisions of
the TADA Act and under Section 302/34, 1208 and other
provisions of the Explosives Act. The accused thereafter
retracted his confession. The court observed:-

D "There can be no doubt that a free and voluntary confession
deserves the highest credit. It is presumed to flow from the
highest sense of guilt. Having examined the record, we are
satisfied that the confession made by the appellant is
voluntary and truthful and was recorded, as already noticed,
E by due observance of all the safeguards provided under
Section 15 and the appellant could be convicted solely on
the basis of his confession."

The court also observed the decision in State of
Maharashtra v. Bharat Chaganlal Raghani, (2001) 9 SCC 1,
F wherein_ the court partially overturned the acquittal of the
accused by the Designated Court solely based on the
confessional statement of the accused which had later been
retracted. In Bharat Chantal's case, the court observed that
there was no denial of the fact that judicial confessions made
G are usually retracted but retracted confessions are held to be
good confessions if they are made voluntarily and in
accordance with law.

74. In the case before us, the contest on the validity of the
H testimony has been multi pronged. Firstly, it was contended that
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1053
[H.L. DATTU, J.]

since the procedure under Section 20A (1) had not been A
followed, the testimony is not valid in law. Secondly, it was
asserted that the accused was made to sign on blank papers
and that the confession has been concocted by the prosecution.
Thirdly, that there is no corroborative evidence given the fact
that certain witnesses including Ram Babu (PW-35) and Sanjay B
Kumar (PW- 36), who were to have witnessed the crime, had
been declared hostile by the prosecuticlm.
!

7 75. The argument pivoted on the requirements under
Section 20A(1) not being fulfilled is, in our opinion, has no merit.
The learned Additional Solicitor General Shri P.P. Malhotra
c
contends that both K.K. Saini and Mange were produced before
the CMM, Delhi to fulfill the requirements under Rule 15 and
the accused did not, at that point, claim that they had been made
to sign on blank papers. Keeping in mind the possibility of
abuse of the process, this court in Kartar Singh (supra) laid D
" ""' down certain guidelines whereby the veracity of the
· confessional statement is ensured, for example, the confession
given to a police officer under Section 15 is to be sent to the
CMM without delay and if the accused when he is so produced
before the CMM alleges torture, he is to be sent for a medical E
examination. Here the accused were sent to the CMM, Delhi
the very next day and they neither alleged that the confession
was fabricated, nor that they had been tortured. In the light of
these circumstances, we have to give due credence to the
confession statement and consider to what extent it has been F
corroborated by substantive evidence.

76. In Ravinder Singh's case, the Court relying on Nalini
v. State (supra), S.N Dube v. N.B Bhoir and Devender Pal
Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2002) 5 SCC 234, held that
G
~-
"it is well established that a voluntary and truthful confessional
statement recorded under Section 15 of TADA requires no
corroboration."

77. This apposite observation by the bench of two learned
Judges in Ravinder Singh's case should be considered with H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A measured caution and we believe, taking into account ground
realities, it would be prudent to examine the authenticity of a
confession on a case to case basis. The problem seems to
be the method we follow in ascertaining whether a specific
confession is truthful and voluntary. Section 15 and the rules
B made thereunder prescribe certain guidelines - which if
ensured can, to a large extent, point towards the fact that the
confession is truthful and voluntary. However, we must not
overlook the fact that the TADA prescribes a deviation from the
conventional criminal jurisprudence. As a court of record, we
c are bound to keep in mind situations where despite the
procedure being followed, the testimony so obtained under
Section 15 is coloured by suspicion and doubt regarding its
veracity. Hence, albeit the procedure is followed, we find it
judicious to look into whether the testimony is corroborated by
the evidence presented by the prosecution. The life and liberty
0
of a person are at stake and we are of the view that no effort
should be spared in such circumstances to see that justice is
done. These are after all the safeguards provided in our
Constitution and the people have vested their faith in this court
E to keep vigil and see to it that these hallowed principles are
not trampled upon by the necessities of the hour and
vicissitudes of time.

78. The confessional statements of K.K. Saini and Mange
are corroborated by the documentary evidence, which are
F marked in the evidence by the prosecution. Exhibit D-20/Ka 2
is the notebook maintained by Hotel .Finero and proves the
entry of Maruti car DNH - 8440 against K.K. Saini's assumed
name, A.K. Singh on 23/3/93. Exhibit D-19 is the hotel register
at Hotel Finero and proves that K.K. Saini and Mange signed
G in it under fictitious names. Both K.K. Saini and Mange have
,..... ..
__
been;recognized by the employees of Hotel Finero. The
testimony of Anant Ram Saxena (PW-1) Hotel Manager,
Kalidas Jaiswal (P.W-44) waiter and Jwala Prasad (PW 60)
appears to be credible and true and if the same is believed, it
H
- MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1055
[H.L. DATTU, J.]

....,;._
corroborates the fact that the accused stayed in the Hotel Finero
during the relevant time and was met by Alimudeen @ Baba .
~
The hand writing of the accused in the register has also been
· proved by the detailed report of Dr. M.A Ali (PW-43), Sr.
Scientific Officer produced as Exhibit-D-27. The car used for
committing the crime has been recovered at the instance of KK Bl
Saini revealing its whereabouts. Recovery Memo dated
23.04.1994 [Exhibit D 16/ Ka 17) records the seizure of the car
from Agra. The copy of the Cash Memo seized from the petrol
~
pump Barabanki [Exhibit- D 22/ Ka 27) and the Customs
Receipt [D 37/28, Ka 76) corroborates the alleged journey from c
Krishna Nagar, Nepal to Allahabad and back. The statement
issued by the Nepal police reveals that Car bearing No. DNH
- 8440 entered Nepal through Krishna Nagar customs and was
allowed to stay for a period of one week on payment of Rs 700
Nepal Currency as customs duty: Further, the printouts of call
D
logs on telephone number 622452 installed in Hotel Finero
·~
(Exhibits 0 38/40 and D 36/2), the report of part of investigation
. in Nepal (Exhibits D 37, D 37/28) is read with the statements
of lndu Singh (PW 87) (land lady of Babloo in Nepal), Bhushan
Lal Shreshtha (PW - 68) [he was Deputy Fiscal Officer,
E
Telecom Dept, Nepal] corroborate the confessional statement
of KK: Saini and Mange to a substantial extent. lndu Singh (PW
87) has recognized Babloo in court and stated that he was
---- · staying at the house.J~nted out by her in Krishna Nagar, Nepal
and that the telephone number from which calls were made to
Room No 7 in hotel Finero, where K.K. Saini and Mange were F
staying, was installed in the same house where Babloo was
staying. Harikesh (Harbans) Batra (PW 21) (Inspector MTNL)
identified K.K. Saini in court and stated that he had previously
been involved in the transfer of a phone in the name of one A.K.
Singh. He stated that K.K Saini and A.K, Singh are one and G
·~ the same. A.K. Singh is the assumed name used by K.K. Saini
even at Hotel Finer'o. K.K Saini had, in his confession, stated
that he had obtained the driving license of A.K Singh and
substituted the photograph therein with his own.
H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R. ..
A 79. Bharat Singh (PW-30) [was declared hostile by
prosecution] stated on oath that he knows Babloo from his
University days. Later he met Babloo when he went to meet
Chandraswami in connection with his reinstatement into
service. He admits to have been involved in solving a few land
B disputes on Babloo's behalf. He has visited Babloo in Nepal a
couple of times. During the time when L.D. Arora was
murdered, he was in Allahabad. He stated that he received calls
from both Mange and Babloo on March 23 and 24. It was stated
by the witness that in the course of conversation, Mange
c revealed that he had obtained Bharat Singh's number from
Babloo. Mange stated that he was presently in Allahabad and
that 2-3 people had come with him. Subsequently, he has stated
that Babloo called him in relation to a property dispute that
Bharat Singh was assisting him with. When Bharat Singh
mentioned talking to Mange over the phone to Babloo, the latter
0
had said that he had given Bharat Singh's number to Mange
and that he was not to meet Mange. Bharat Singh was declared
hostile and cioss examined by the prosecution. In the course
of cross examination, he has denied having told the
investigating officer that Mange had told him that he had come
I;! to Allahabad to kill L.D. Arora. However, he admitted that he
told the CBI officer that Babloo told him that Mange was there
on a specific task and that is the reason why he should desist
from meeting him.

F 80. The evidence of Bharat Singh, despite the fact that the
prosecution has chosen to treat him as a hostile witness, need
not be totally disregarded. Its admissibility should be tested in
the light of the surrounding circumstances and other evidence.
In Radha Mohan Singh vs. State of UP, 2006 Cri LJ 1121
G (1125) (SC), this Court has observed:

"It is well settled that the evidence of a prosecution witness
cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution
choose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him.
The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced
H
A
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (2011) 1 S.C.R.

explosive substances or inflammable substances or lethal
-
weapons or poisons or noxious gases or other chemicals
or by any other substances (whether biological or
otherwise) of a hazardous nature in such a manner as to
cause, or as is likely to cause, death of, or injuries to, any
B person or persons or loss of, or damage to, or destruction
of, property or disruption of any supplies or services
essential to the life of the community, or detains any person
and threatens to kill or injure such person in order to
compel the Government or any other person to do or
c abstain from doing any act, commits a terrorist act.

(2) Whoever commits a terrorist act, shall, ~

(i) if such act has resulted in the death of any person, be
punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall
D also be liable to fine;

(ii) in any other case; be punishable with imprisonment for
a term which shall not be less than five years but which may
extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to
fine.
E
(3) Whoever conspires or attempts to commit, or
advocates, abets, advises or incites or knowingly
facilitates the commission of, a terrorist act or any act
preparatory to a terrorist act, shall be punishable with
F imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and
shall also be liable to fine.

(4) Whoever harbours or conceals, or attempts to harbour
G or conceal, any terrorist shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five ~--·

years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and
shall also be liable to fine.

(5) Any person who is a member of a terrorists gang or a
H
_., MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1059
[H.L. DATTU, J.]

terrorist organisation, which is· involved in terrorist acts, A
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than five years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

(6) Whoever holds any property derived or obtained from
B
commission of any terrorist act or has been acquired
through the terrorist funds shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five
'JI!'-
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and
shall also be liable to fine."
C'
85. Section 3 of the TADA Act gives due importance to
the aspect of 'intent'. The person who is alleged to be involved
in rterrorist act can be charged under Section 3(1) only when
· the. prosecution has been successful in establishing that the
'

same was committed with the intent to awe the government or D
-~ to achieve one or the other ends mentioned under Section 3(1).
The Designated Court, while dismissing the charges under the
TADA Act, cited with approval the decision of this court in
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4
SCC 602. This Court made a distinction between the incidence E
of terror as a consequence of a particular act and causing terror
being the sole intent of the same act. It is only in case of the
latter thatthe provisions of Section 3(1) are attracted. It was
held that:

"If it is only as a consequence of the criminal act that fear, F
terror or/and panic is caused but the intention of
committing the particular crime cannot be. said to be the
one strictly envisaged by Section 3(1 ), it would be
impermissible to try or convict and punish an accused
•. .4 under TADA. The commission of the crime with the G
intention to achieve the result as envisaged by the section
and not merely where the consequence of the crime .
committed by the accused create that result, would attract
the provisions of Section 3(1) of TADA. Thu~. if for
example a person goes on a shooting spree and kills a H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A number of persons, it is bound to create terror and panic
in the locality but if it was not committed with the requisite
intention as contemplated by the section, the offence would
not attract Section 3(1)"

. 86. In State vs. Nalini (supra), a three Judge Bench of this
8
Court has quoted the dictum laid down in Hitendra Vishnu
Thakur (supra) with approval and concluded thus: (See p.298
Para 51):

"51. Thus the legal position remains unaltered that the
c crucial postulate for judging whether the offence is a
terrorist act falling under TADA or not i~ whether it was
done with the intent to overawe the Government as by law
established or to strike terror in the people etc."

0 87. In State of West Bengal vs. Mohammed Khalid (1995)
1 SCC 684, referring to Corpus Juris Secundum (A
Contemporary Statement of American Law, Vol 22 at pg 116),
the meaning of intent was quoted as under:

"Intention- (a) In general (b) Specific or general intent
E crimes; An actual intent to commit the particular crime
towards which the act moves is a necessary element of
an attempt to commit a crime. Although the intent must be
one in fact, not merely in law, and may not be inferred from
I
the overt act alone, it may be inferred from the
'F circumstances"

88. The prosecution in this case has argued that charge
under Section 3 is maintainable in the light of the Bombay bomb
blasts and the fact that L.D. Arora would have been pivotal in
G providing information regarding the smuggling of arms and
explosives. The case before us concerns the murder of L.D. ...._ ·
Arora. The prosecution has not been successful in proving that
this particular murder was committed with the intention to cause
terror. As mentioned earlier, terror could have been caused as
H a consequence of the act. The prosecution has stated that the
MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. 1061
[H.L. DATTU, J.]

main intention behind the murder of L.D. Arora was to prevent A
the names of Mohd. Dosa, Tahir Shah and others involved in
smuggling of arms and explosives would not come to light
during the investigations that followed the Bombay blast. It is
therefore evident that the intention of the accused in the present
· case was not' to cause terror but to prevent information B
regarding another crime from being divulged. In the light of
these facts, we are of the opinion that the TADA Court was
justified in dismissing the charges framed under the TADA Act.
Therefore, appeals filed by the State for enhancement 9f
sentence require to be dismissed. c
89. In view of the discussion noticed above, we find no
illegality in the judgment under appeals. As such, appeals stand
dismissed.

R.P. Appeals dismissed. D -