MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI

Judgment

- [2011) 1 S.C.R. 997 MANJIT SINGH @ MANGE v. CBI, THROUGH ITS S.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1778 of 2008 etc.) JANUARY 25, 2011 [P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] A B .,... ' 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 F 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 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: 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. A 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 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 F H . ...., 1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. · B 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 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) 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. 0 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: .....

#1. Case of accused 'B': B D

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 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 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', who were tried under the TADA Act. [para 15, 35 and 38] G (1023-E; 1036-F; 1037-D-F] E 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 ....., ..,.. -y 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 ~ .-+-- -"(" B c D E F G