Holding

The Designated Court erred in refusing consent; the Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of TADA charges under Section 321 CrPC, holding that the court must not adjudicate the merits or confessional evidence and may grant consent if the application is made in good faith and in the public interest.

Summary

The appellant, Vijay Kumar Baldev Mishra, was charged under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and IPC for a gang‑related murder. A Review Committee, set up under the Kartar Singh guidelines, recommended that the TADA provisions were inapplicable because the offence was motivated by personal rivalry, not terror. Accordingly, the public prosecutor filed an application under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking the court’s consent to withdraw the TADA charges. The Designated Court refused, citing the relevance of confessional statements made under TADA. The Supreme Court held that the court should not pass on the merits or the effect of such confessions when considering a Section 321 application; bonafide of the prosecutor alone does not guarantee consent, but the court must ensure the application is made in good faith and public interest. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the withdrawal of TADA charges was ordered. The Court also noted, in a supplementary opinion, that Section 1(4) of TADA, which permits continuation of proceedings after the Act’s expiry, likely violates Article 14, though this point was not decided in the appeal.

Issues considered

The scope of the court’s discretion under Section 321 CrPC when a public prosecutor seeks withdrawal of TADA charges.
Whether the Designated Court may consider the merit of the case and the effect of confessions made under TADA in deciding the application.
Whether the bonafide belief of the public prosecutor automatically compels the court to grant consent.
Constitutional validity of Section 1(4) of the TADA Act (raised in a supplementary opinion).

Legislation cited

Arms Act
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 320, s. 321
Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 20(1)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 307
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987s. 1(4), s. 15, s. 3

Subjects

Section 321 CrPCwithdrawal of prosecutionTADADesignated Courtconfessional statementspublic prosecutorbonafideArticle 14review committeecriminal procedure

Judgment

.._--.. VIJA YKUMAR BALDEV MISHRA @SHARMA A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

MAY 18, 2007

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.) B

. ..- -_,c
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 321-Withdrawal from
prosecution by public prosecutor-Consent' of court for withdrawal-Grant
of-Application for withdrawal of charges under TADA against accused on
recommendations of Review Committee that case not made out under TADA-
c
Designated Court refusing to grant permission on the ground of certain
confessions having been made thereunder-Correctness of-,-Held: Designated
Court not correct in expressing its opinion on merit of the matter and the
effect of confessions made:_lt was not necessary to consider bonafide of the
public prosecutor~Moreover, bonafide of public prosecutor itself could not D
automatically lead to grant of consent-Thus, application for withdrawal of
~
charges to be al/owed~Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Preventi<Jn) Act,
*
1987.

According to the prosecution case, murder of AS took place on account
of enmity between two gangs. Appellant was the accused along with others. E
-FIR was lodged. Appellant along with others were charged under s. 302/307
IPC, Arms Act and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.
Pursuant to and in furtherance of the directions issued by the Court in *Kartar
Singh's case as also the decision of High Court, Review Committee was
.constituted. It took into consideration 27 cases including appellant's case and
F
... t opined that murder of AS was on account of personal enmity and not to cause
fear or terror in mind of people and as such proceedings under TADA against
all the accused may be dropped and may be prosecuted under s. 302 IPC.
Thereafter, the public prosecutor filed applic~tion against the appellant for
withdrawal of charges under TADA. Designated Court TADA dismissed the
application. Respondent-State filed writ petition which was dismissed. Hence G
the present appeal.

-,. Appellant contended that in view of the recommendations of the Review
Committee, the Designated Court TADA committed a manifest error in

601 H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A refusing to allow the public prosecutor to withdraw the case solely on the
ground that certain confessions having been made thereunder, the same would +- -
not be available if the appellant was proceeded against under TADA Act.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

B HELD: J.l. Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
provides for withdrawal from prosecution at the instance of the public

c
prosecutor. Indisputably therefore the consent of the Court is necessary.
Therefore, application of mind on the part of the Court is necessary in regard
to the grounds for withdrawal from the prosecution in respect of any one or
more the offences for which the appellant is tried. The provisions of TADA
-.r· -
could be attracted only in the event of one or the other of the four 'things'
specified in **State vs Na/ini's case is found applicable and not otherwise.
The Review Committee made recommendations upon consideration of all
relevant facts. It came to its opinion upon considering the materials on record.
Its recommendations were based also upon the legality of the charges under
D TADA in the fact situation obtaining in eac!i case. It came to the conclusion
that in committing the purported offence, the appellant inter alia had no
intention to strike terror in people or any section of the people and in fact the ~

murder was committed only in view of group rivalry and because the parties +
ihtended to take revenge, the provisions of the TADA should not have been
invoked. (Para 121 (609-E, F; GI
E
1.2. The Public Prosecutor in terms of the statutory scheme laid down
under the Cr. P.C. plays an important role. He is supposed to be an independent
person. While filing such an application, the public prosecutor also is required
to apply his own mind and the effect thereof on the society in the event such
permission is granted. (Para 1311609-H; 610-AI
F
1.3. While refusing to grant permission, the Designated Court was not
-f
...
correct in expressing its opinion in the merit of the matter and the effect of
confessions made in terms of the provisions of TADA. However, it was also
not necessary to consider as to whether, the action of the public prosecutor
G as also the State was bona fide or not. Moreover, bona fide on the part of the
public pr_osecutor itself cannot automatically lead to grant of consent. There
are other circumstances also which ·are required to be taken into
consideration. Thus, the application filed by the State for withdrawal of the
charges under TADA against the appellant is to be allowed.
(Paras 17 and 1811613-B; q
H
VIJAYKUMAR BALDE\' MISHRA@ SHARMA•·. Sl ATE OF MAHARASHTRA 603

*Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 119941 3 SCC 569; R.M Tewari v. A
State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., 119961 2 $CC 610; **State v. Nalini, 119991
5 SCC 253; State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey, 119571 1 SCR 279;
Sheonandan Paswal v. State of Bihar, 11987) 1 SCC 288; S.K. Shukla and
Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors .. 12006) l SCC 314; Rahul Agarwal v. Rakesh
Jain and Anr., 120051 2 sec 377 and K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of B
Police and Ors., 120041 3 SCC 767, relied on.

Per Markandey Katju J (supplementing):

1.1. It is under section 1 (4) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1987 that the provisions under TADA have been continued C
although the life of the Act has expired. The provision that legal proceedings
can be instituted or continued even after the Act has expired, is clearly violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. !Paras 6 and 7) 1614-E; Fl

1.2. In the instant case, section 1(4) of the Act says that the offence
created by section 3 of the Act will be punishable as a crime if the act was D
committed on or before 24.5.1995, but if the same act was committed after
24.5.1995, it will not be a crime. This is ex facie violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution and hence Section 1(4) of Act to the extent it says that acts
mentioned in Section 3 committed on or before 24.5.1995 can still be treated
as a crime and punished under the TADA, though the same act committed E
after 24.5.1995 cannot, clearly be ultra vires Article 14 and hence liable to
be struck down as unconstitutional. IPara IOJ 1615-B; CJ

1.3. As regards those who have already undergone the entire sentence
for which they were convicted under TADA obviously nothing can be done,
but regarding those who have undergone only part of the sentence or F
regarding those who are facing prosecution or investigation under TADA such
prosecution or investigation are liable to be quashed. IPara 1211615-EJ

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURJSDICTION : Criminal Ap.peal No. 602 of
2004.
G
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 15.3.2003 of the Designated
Court (TADA), Pune in EXH No. 282 in TADA Sessions Case No. 8of1993.

R.F. Nariman, Sr. Adv., K.V. Vishwanathan, Anup Kumar and Atishi
Dipankar for the Appellant. H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 SC.R.

A Prashant Chaudhary and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.8. SINHA, J.
B
I. One Anna Shetty was facing trial for murder of one Duni Chand
Kalani. Duni Chand Kalani is said to be the uncle of one Pappu Kalani. He
was an accused in a murder case. The said Anna Shetty was murdered in Jail.
Anna Shetty was released from Jail on 15.10.1990. He was murdered on the
same day. The appellant was an accused therein with many others. The said
C murder took place in view of the long standing enmity between two gangs
belonging to Gopal Rajwani and Pappu Kalani. A First Infonnation Report was
lodged under Section 302/307 IPC as also under the Anns Act. Appellant,
however, along with others, were also charged under Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'TADA').
D 2 Indisputably, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Kartar Singh
v. State of Punjab, [1994) 3 SCC 569, while upholding the validity of TADA
directed constitution of a Committee to review the cases pending thereunder
for the purpose of making recommendations to the Government, so as to
enable it to consider the matters where in its opinion, the tharges under
E TADA were required to be dropped and the matters for the prosecution
thereunder should continue.

3. Kartar Singh (supra) was explained by this Court in R.M Tewari v.
State (NCT of Delhi) and Others, [ 1996) 2 SCC 610 in the following terms:

F "IO. The observations in Kartar Singh I have to be understood in the
context in which they were made. It was observed that a review of the
cases should he made by a High Power Committee to ensure that there
was no misuse of the stringent provisions of the TADA Act and any
case in which resort to the TADA Act was found to be unwarranted,
the necessary remedial measures should be taken. The Review
G Committee is expected to perform its functions in this manner. If the
recommendation of the Review Committee, based on the material
present, is, that resort to provisions of the TADA Act is unwarranted
for any reason which permits withdrawal from prosecution for those
offences, a suitable application made under Section 321 CrPC on that
ground has to be considered and decided by the Designated Court
H
VIJA YKUMAR BALDEV MISHRA @ SHARMA v. ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA [S.8. Sl1'HA. J] 605

giving due weight to the opinion formed by the public prosecutor on A
the basis of the recommendation of the High Power Committee.

l l. It has also to be borne in mind that the initial invocation of the
stringent provisions of the TADA Act is itself subject to sanction of
the Government and, therefore, the revised opinion of the Government
formed on the basis of the recommendation of the High Power B
Committee after scrutiny of each case should not be lightly disregarded
by the court except for weighty reasons such as mala fides or manifest
arbitrariness. The worth of the material to support the charge under

- the TADA Act and the evidence which can be produced, is lifely to
be known to the prosecuting agency and, therefore, mere existence of C
prima facie material to support the framing of the charge should not
by itself be treated as sufficient to refuse the consent for withdrawal
from prosecution. It is in this manner an application made to withdraw
the charges of offences under the TADA Act pursuant to review of
a case by the Review Committee has to be considered and decided
by the Designated Courts." D

- 4. Bombay High Court also took the same view and issued similar
directions.

5. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the recommendations of this Court
as also the Bombay High Court, a Review Committee was constituted, headed E
by a retired Judge of the High Court of Bombay. The Review Committee took
up for consideration 27 cases including the one pending against the appellant
herein. In its report, the Review Committee opined :

"The murder of Anna Shetty appears to be out of personal enmity
and not intended to cause fear or terror in the minds of the people. F
It is so stated in the chargesheet itself.

"To take revenge of the murder of his uncle and to establish
supremacy over the rival gang, he made conspiracy to kill Anna
Shetty by providing money, weapons, manpowers, vehicles and
other assistance. He was the mastermind behind the killing of G
Anna Shetty."

It also reveals that the genesis of two murder cases i.e. TCS
No.25/92 and TCS 8/93 are inter connected as observed by the Supreme
Court in its order dated 2nd March 200 I in Criminal Appeal No. 12981,
1299of1998 as under: H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2007] 7 S.C.R.

A "According to the prosecution there are two groups in
Ulhasnagar. one is headed by Gopal Rajwani and other by Pappu
Kalani. The deceased Maruti Jadhav and one Krishna Pillay were
eye witness to the murder of Lalu in the year 1989 at hotel Sun
& Sand, Bombay. The said Krishna was murdered and thereafter
Maruti Jadhav remained the only eye witness."
B
It is heard in the case of N iranjan Singh Karan Singh Punjabi vs.
Jitendera Bhimraj Bijj-AIR 1990 SC 1962 (I 969).

"A mere statement to the effect that the show of such violence
would create terror or fear in the minds of the people and none
c would care to oppose them cannot constitute an offence under
Section 3 (I) of TADA Act."

It was observed :

"Although the murder of Anna Shetty took place in 1990 and the
D case was chargesheeted in 1993, the trial has not commenced. There
are three accused persons who are still in jail for more than seven
years and are yet to be tried. In view of the observation of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the various judgments cited above, the
long time that has elapsed, periods spent in jail and the fact that the
crime is committed due to personal enmity, the Review Committee is
E of the view to drop the proceedings under TADA against all the
accused and they may be prosecuted for the charges under Section
302 IPC etc. in the regular Sessions Court.

6. It was opined that no case for continuation of a case under TADA
had been made out against the appellant. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the
F said recommendations, the special public prosecutor filed an application for
withdrawal of the charges under TADA inter alia as against the appellant·
stating :

"The reasons for withdrawal are as under :

G (A) The stringent provision of TADA need not to be attracted in
the· instant case and the Government. after proper discussion on the
facts of the case and the evidence, reports and letters available on the
record has decided in the enclosed list and the Government has
perused all records and considered the opinion of the Review
H Committee formulated by the State Government under orders of the

.
VUAYKUMAR BALDE\' MISHR.\@SHARMA "·STATE OF MAHARASHTRA(S.B. SINHA, J] 607

Supreme Court. It would be just and proper that thi::: case need. not A
-~

-~-+ be proceeded further. The request is being made to withdraw from
prosecution as against the offences punishable under the TADA Act,
and the stringent and hard provisions of TADA were not necessary
to deal with such situations. In fact, from the record it has also been
seen that the provision of the said TADA Act also could not be said
to be attracted as the said provision cannot be invoked nor could the
B
activities be said to be disruptive activities as the said incident seems
to have taken place because of the personal rivalry and as held by
A
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State vs. Nalini and others
-----
reported in 1999 (5) sec 253, it could not be said that the provisions
of Section of TADA are applicable. It is worthwhile to note that after c
having seen the record that concession cannot form the basis for
framing charges. (B) The State Government having considered all this
and the Special Public Prosecutor having applied his mind to this
aspect, seeks to withdraw from the prosecution in respect of offences
under TADA Act as against the accused in the instant case."
D
7. The Designated Court TADA dismissed the said application by an
,; order dated 15.5.1993 inter alia opining:
~

"The case No.8/93 pertains to the murder of Anna Shetty and
constable Surve. He has also referred to the murder of one Ghanasham
Bhjatia and Inder Bhatija on 27. 7.1990 and 28.4.90 respectively, who E
were also accused in case of murder ofDunichand Kalani. In the order
dated I 0.11.98 in connected TADA Sessions Case No.25/92 and 9/93
below Exh. 27, 31, 32 etc. my learned predecessor made reference to
the confessional statements of accused recorded under the provisions
of TADA Act. Leaving aside the infirmities and/or evidentiary value
F
of these statements which will be assessed during trial the fact remains
..... that all this evidence collected after strenuous investigation will have
"\
to be ignored. In both these cases allegations are that conspiracy was
hatched to eliminate Anna Shetty. Maruti Jadhav and in pursuance of
this plan was executed on different dates. Thus confessional statements
recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act are very relevant and G
important piece of evidence to unfold conspiracy and to unfold act
of main perpetrator of crime. Keeping in view this aspect of the matter,
if applications for dropping of the charges under the provisions of
-...,.. TADA Act are considered, it would be difficult to conclude that the
withdrawal from the prosecution or dropping of the charges under the
H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.

A provisions of TADA Act would hardly serve any public interest or
would advance course of justice. This is apart from the fact that in
both these matters there are orders of Hon 'ble Supreme Court wherein
applicability of TADA has been upheld and trials have been expedited.
It is therefore expected of the State to render assistance to the Court
to dispose of the matters expeditiously."
B
8. The State of Maharashtra being aggrieved by the said order filed a
writ petition before the Bombay High Court which was marked as Criminal p...
. Writ Petition 562 of2003. A Division Bench of the said Court by a judgment -r
and order dated 4.7.2003 while declining to entertain the same opined that as
c an appeal against the order of the learned Designated Court TADA is
maintain!lble under Section 19 of the Act, the petitioner should take recourse
thereto stating:

"In our opinion therefore the objection raised by Mr. Nitin. Pradhan
that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that
D alternate and efficacious remedy by way of appeal is available to the
prosecution is well founded.
~

In all humility, in our opinion, a remedy of appeal under Section ';-

19 of the TADA Act is far more efficacious and better for all concerned
than seeking exercise of writ jurisdiction of this court under Article
E 226 of the Constitution.

Yet another important aspect to be noted is that this very
interveners in this case i.e. representatives of the victim are also the
interveners of the appeal in the Supreme Court which was decided by
the order dated 2nd March 200 I. It is pertinent to note that they do
F not in our opinion, rightly raise any objection about maintainability of
the appeal in Supreme Court on the ground that the order challenged ,..,
-f
is an interlocutory order."

9. Appellant has, thus, preferred this appeal under Section 19 of the
TADA (P) Act, 1987 from the said judgment of the Designated Court TADA
G dated 10.3.2003.

10. Mr. R.F. Nariman, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant. submits that keeping in view the recommendations of the
Review Committee, the learned Designated Court TADA committed a manifest ·-r-'
error in refusing to allow the public prosecutor to withdraw the case solely
H on the ground that certain confessions having been made thereunder, the
VIJAYt..l'\IAR BALDEV MISHRA@ SHARMA•·. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [S.8. SINHA. J.J
609

;,_, · same would not be available if the appellant is not proceeded against under A
TADA Act. The Review Committee, as noticed hereinbefore, was constituted
in view of the directions issued by this Court in Karlar Singh (Supra) and
a decision of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 289 of2002.
The Review Committee reviewed only those cases where the trial had not
started. They formulated their own guidelines for scrutiny of the matter. It
B
noticed the decision of this Court in S1a1e v. Nalini reported in ( 1999) 5 SCC
253 wherein it was held :
·-"'
"A reading of the first sub-section shows that the person who does
any act by using any of the substances enumerated in the sub-section
in any such manner as are specified in the sub-section, cannot be said c
to commit a terrorist act unless the act is done "with intent" to do any
of the four things: (1) to overawe the Government as by law
established; or (2) to strike terror in people or any section of the
people; or (3) to alienate any section of the people; or (4) to adversely
....._, affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people"
D
11. Mr. R.K. Adsure, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
;.
-":'
supported the contention of Mr. Nariman.

12. Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides for
withdrawal from prosecution at the instance of the public prosecutor or
Assistant public prosecutor. Indisputably therefor the consent of the Court E
is necessary. Application of mind on the part of the Court, therefore, is
necessary in regard to the grounds for withdrawal from the prosecution in
respect of any one or more of the offences for which the appellant is tried.
The provisions of TADA could be attracted only in the event of one or the
other of the four 'things' specified in Nalini (supra) is found applicable and
F
~
not otherwise. The Review Committee made recommendations upon
.....
consideration of all relevant facts. It came to its opinion upon considering the
<.....
materials on record. Its recom1m;ndations were based also upon the legality
of the charges under TADA in the fact situation obtaining in each case. It
came to the conclusion that in committing the purported offence, the appellant
inler alia had no intention to strike terror in people or any section of the G
people and in fact the murder has been committed only in view of group
rivalry and because the parties intended to take revenge, the provisions of
~
the TADA should not have been invoked.
)'

13. The Public Prosecutor in terms of the statutory scheme \aid down
under the Code of Criminal Procedure plays an important role. He is supposed H
610 SUPREME COllRT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A to be an independent per~on. While filing such an application, the public
prosecutor also is required to apply his own mind and the effect thereof Qn
the society in the event such permission is granted.

14. lnSheonandanPaswalv.StateofBihar, [1987] I SCC288,Khalid,
J, opined :
B
"73. Section 321 gives the Public Prosecutor the power for withdrawal
of any case at any stage before judgment is pronounced. This
presupposes the fact that the entire evidence may have been adduced
in the case, before the application is made. When an application under
Section 321 CrPC is made, it is not necessary for the court to assess
c the evidence to discover whether the case would end in conviction
or acquittal. To contend that the court when it exercises its limited
power of giving consent under Section 321 has to assess the evidence
and find out whether the case would end in acquittal or conviction,
would be to rewrite Section 321 CrPC and would be to concede to the
D court a power which the scheme of Section 321 does not contemplate.
The acquittal or discharge order under Section 32 l are not the same
as the normal final orders in criminal cases. The conclusion will not
be backed by a detailed discussion of the evidence in the case of
acquittal or absence of prima facie case or groundlessness in the case
of discharge. All that the court has to see is whether the application .1
E is made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice and
not to thwart or stifle the process of law. The court after considering
these facets of the case, will have to see whether the application
suffers from such improprieties or illegalities as to cause manifest
injustice if consent is given. In this case, on a reading of the application
F for withdrawal, the order of consent and the other attendant
circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the application for
withdrawal and the order giving consent were proper and strictly ..>
within the confines of Section 321 CrPC."

15. In regard to the Courts' function in the matter of grant of consent,
G while opining that the grant should not be a matter of course, this Court held
that even a detailed reasoned order is not necessary to be passed therefor.
The Court took into consideration the jurisdiction of the Court under Section
321 of the Criminal Procedure Code vis-a-vis other provisions laid down
therein opining :

·H "85. The scope of Section 321 can be tested from another angle and
VIJAYKUMAR BALDEV MISHRA@, SHARMA"· STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SB. SINHA. J.] 611

"lo.~
that is with reference to Section 320 which deals with "compounding A
of offences". Both these sections occur in Chapter 24 under the
heading "General Provisions as to Enquiries and Trials". Section 320(1)
pertains to compounding of offences, in the table, which are not of
a serious nature while Section 320(2) pertains to offences of a slightly
serious in nature but not constituting grave crimes. The offences in
the table under Section 320(1) may be compounded by the persons
B
mentioned in the third column of the table without the permission of
...... the court and those given in the Table II, under Section 320(2) can be
-..(
compounded only with the permission of the court. Under sub-section
4(a ), when a person who would otherwise be competent to compound

__.
an offence under Section 320, is under the age of 18 years or is an c
.. idiot or a lunatic, any person competent to contract on his behalf may,
with the permission of the court, compound such offence. Sub-section
4(b) provides that when a person who would otherwise be competent
~ to compound an offence under this section is dead, the legal
representative, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, of such
person may, with the consent of the court, compound such offence. D
~ ... -.\-
86. These two sub-sections use the expression "with the permission
of the court" and "with the consent of the court" which are more or
less ejusdem generis. On a fair reading of the abovementioned sub-
sections it can be safely presumed that the sections confer only a
supervisory power on the court in the matter of compounding of E
offences in the manner indicated therein, with this safeguard that the
accused does not by unfair or deceitful means, secure a composition
of the offence. Viewed thus I do not think that a plea can be
successfully put forward that granting permission or giving consent
under sub-section (4)(a) or (4)(b) for compounding of an offence, the F
court is enjoined to make a serious detailed evaluation of the evidence
~
or assessment of the case to be satisfied that the case would result
in acquittal or conviction. It is necessary to bear in mind that an
application for compounding of an offence can be made at any stage.
Since Section 321 finds a place in this chapter immediately after
Section 320, one will be justified in saying that it should take its G
colour from the immediately preceding section and in holding that this
section, which is a kindred to Section 320, contemplates consent by
~
the court only in a supervisory manner and not essentially in an
adjudicatory manner, the grant of consent not depending up<>n a
detailed assessment of the weight or volume of evidence to see the
H
l
'
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A degree of success at the end of the trial. All that is necessary for the
court to see is to ensure that the application for withdrawal has been
properly made, after independent consideration, by the Public
Prosecutor and in furtherance of public interest.

It was furthennore held:
B
"90. Section 321 CrPC is virtually a step by way of composition of the
offence by the State. The State is the master of the litigation in ...,
criminal cases. It is useful to remember that by the exercise of functions .;-.-

under Section 321, the accountability of the concerned person or
persons does not disappear. A private complaint can still be filed if /-
c a party is aggrieved by the withdrawal of the prosecution but running
~
the possible risk of a suit of malicious prosecution if the complaint is
bereft of any basis." t-
~···
,I
(See also S.K. Shukla and Others v. State of UP. and Others, [2006)
I SCC 314, Rahul Agarwal v. Rakesh Jain and Anr., [2005) 2 SCC 377
D and K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police and Others, (2004)
3 sec 767).

16. Noticing that no gt:idelines have been provided for in the matter
of grant·or withdrawal of the consent by the·court, the Constitution Bench
E referred to the ratio of its earlier decision in State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh
Pandey, [1957) I SCR 279 wherein it was held:

"His discretion in such matters has necessarily to be exercised with
reference to such material as is by then available and it is not a prima
facie judicial determination of any specific issue. The Magistrate's
functions in these matters are not only supplementary, at a higher
F
level, to those of the executive but are intended to prevent abuse.
Section 494 requiring the consent of the court for withdrawal by the
Public Prosecutor is more in line with this scheme, than with the
provisions of the Code relating to inquiries and trials by court. It
carinot be taken to place on the court the responsibility for a prima I
G facie determination of a triable issue. For instance the discharge that r
j
results therefrom need not always conform to the standard of 'no I
'
prima facie case' under Sections 209(1) and 253( I) or of
'groundlessness' under Sections 209(2) and 253(2). This is not to say
that a consent is to be lightly given on the application of the Public
Prosecutor, without a careful and proper scrutiny of the grounds on
H
VUA \1CUMAR BALDE\' MISHRA@ SHARMA '" STATE Of MAHARASHTRA [MARXANDEY KATJU. J ] 6} 3

which the application for consent is made." A
17. While refusing to grant pennission, the Designated Court, in our
opinion, was not correct in expressing its opinion in the _merit of the matter
and the effect of confessions made in terms of the provisions of TADA. It
was, however, also not necessary to consider as to whether, the action of the
public prosecutor as also the State was bonajide or not. Moreover, bonafide B
on the part of the public prosecutor itself cannot automatically lead to grant
of consent. There are other circumstances also which are required to be taken
into consideration.

18. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is allowed. The C
application filed by the State for withdrawal of the charges under TADA
against the appellant shall stand allowed. The learned Designated Judge may
now proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. I have perused the judg..ient of my learned
brother Hon 'ble S.B. Sinha, J. in this case. The facts of the case have been D
narrated in the judgment of my learned brother and hence I am not repeating
the same. I entirely agree with the reasoning and conclusion of my learned
brother.

2. However, there is an important constitutional point which though not
taken in the Criminal Appeal before us, is of such great importance that I wish E
to express my opinion on the same.

3. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
(hereinafter referred to as "The Act") stated initially in Section 1(4) thereof
that the said Act will remain in operation for a period of two years from
24.5.1987, but thereafter by amendments from time to time the period of two F
years was extended to four years, then .six years and lastly for eight years.

4. Thus Section 1(4) of the Act as it stood ultimately read as follows:

"It shall remain in force for a period of [eight years]· from the 24th
day of May, 1987, but its expiry under. the operation of this sub- G
section shall not affect_:_

(a) the previous operation of, or anything duly done or suffered
under this Act or any rule made thereunder or any order made
under any such rule, or
H
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R.

A (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or +--·J
incurred under this Act or any rule made thereunder or any order
made under any such rule, or

(c) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any
offence under this Act or any contravention of any rule made
B under this Act or of any order made under any such rule, or

(d) any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any
such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or
punishment as aforesaid

and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be
c instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or
punishment may be imposed as if this Act had not expired."

5. There was no further extension of the period for which the Act
remained in force, and hence the Act automatically came to an end on
D 24.5.1995.
6. However, Section I (4) of the Act also stated that the expiry of the
aforesaid period of the Act would not affect any right or liability incurred
when the Act was in force, and legal proceedings can be instituted or continued
as if the Act has not expired, provided the act in question was committe.d . -
E when the Act was in force. It is under this provision that prosecutions under
TADA have be1..n continued although the life of the Act has expired.

7. In my opinion the provision that legal proceedings can be instituted
· or continued even after the Act has expired, is clearly violative of Article 14
of the Constitution of India. We may test the constitutional position by taking
F a hypothetical case. Supposing a law is made which makes an act committed
by a person a crime on one day, but the same law says that the same act will
not be a crime if committed on the next day. Surely such a law will be violative
of Article 14 unless there is very strong and rational basis for such classification
and differentiation.

G 8. From the common sense point o_f view too, it does not stand to
reason that a certain act will be treated as a crime if committed within one time
period, but it will not be a crime if it is committed thereafter.

9.' Of course, if there is good rational ground for making such a
differentiation, Article 14 may not be violated but then it will be for the State
H
VUA YKUMAR BALDEV MISHRA@ SHARMA •·. STATE Of MAHARASHTRA (MARKANDEY KATJU. Jj 615

Authorities to justify such a classification on some reasonable and rational A
basis, failing which it will clearly violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

10. In the present case, Section 1(4) of the Act says that the offence
created by Section 3 of the Act will be punishable as a crime if the act was
committed on or before 24.5.1995, but if the same act was committed after
24.5.1995, it will not be a crime. To my mind this is ex facie violation of Article B
14 of the Constitution and hence Section I (4) of Act to the extent it says that
acts mentioned in Section 3 committed on or before 24.5.1995 can still be
.,;.
treated as a crime and punished under the TADA, though the same act
committed after 24.5.1995 cannot, is in my opinion clearly ultra vires Article
14 and hence is liable to be struck down as unconstitutional.
c
11. Since this point has not been raised in the appeal I am not giving
any final opinion in the matter, but the point, to my mind, is of such a vital
and wide constitutional importance that I thought it fit to express my opinion
on the same, so that this opinion can be considered in other cases where
prosecutions under TADA are going on or where convictions have been D
made in relation to the offences under Section 3 alleged to have been committed
before 24.5.1995.

12. As regards those who have already undergone the entire sentence
for which they were convicted under TADA obviously nothing can be done,
but regarding those who have undergone only part of the sentence or regarding E
those who are facing prosecution or investigation under TADA such
prosecution or investigation are liable to be quashed in view of the opinion
expressed above.

13. It is of course made clear that the above opinion has nothing to do
with Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which deals with ex post facto laws. F
14. With the above observation the appeal is allowed and the impugned
order is set aside. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith unless
required in some other case.

N.J. Appeal allowed. G

-
·~