NDLI: Manjit Singh @ Mange V. Vs. Cbi, Through Its S.p.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	12 - Designated Court -Jurisdiction of s.
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES PREVENTION ACT, 1987: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 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: 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 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 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 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 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 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: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) r/w 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, 302/34 and 302/120-B IPC. It also rightly acquitted the accused of the charges under TADA Act - There is no illegality in the impugned judgement. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 - ss.3(2) and 3(3) read withs. 3(1). Evidence - Circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence -Offences punishable u/ss 302/ 120-B /PC -Evidence against 'mastermind'l'kingpin' of criminal conspiracy -Appreciation of - Penal Code, 1860 -
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 73
Petitioner	Manjit Singh @ Mange V.
Respondent	Cbi, Through Its S.p.
SCR	[2011] 1 S.C.R. 997
Judgement Date	2011-01-25
Case Number	1778

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Manjit Singh @ Mange V. Vs. Cbi, Through Its S.p.

Please Log-in to view this content

The State By S.p. Through The Spe Cbi Vs. Uttamchand Bohra

Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav Vs. Cbi Through Its Director

Rajesh Ranjan Yadav & Pappu Yadav Vs. Cbi Through Its Director

State of Punjab Vs. Manjit Singh & Ors.

Union of !noia Vs. S.p. Singh

M. Gopalakrishnan Vs. State By Addl. S.p. Cbi, B.s. & F.c., Bangalore

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Manjit Singh and Ors.

State Through C.b.i. Vs. Mahender Singh Dahiya

Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. State Through Cbi, New Delhi

Manjit Singh @ Mange V. Vs. Cbi, Through Its S.p.

Manjit Singh @ Mange V. Vs. Cbi, Through Its S.p.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

The State By S.p. Through The Spe Cbi Vs. Uttamchand Bohra

Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav Vs. Cbi Through Its Director

Rajesh Ranjan Yadav & Pappu Yadav Vs. Cbi Through Its Director

State of Punjab Vs. Manjit Singh & Ors.

Union of !noia Vs. S.p. Singh

M. Gopalakrishnan Vs. State By Addl. S.p. Cbi, B.s. & F.c., Bangalore

State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Manjit Singh and Ors.

State Through C.b.i. Vs. Mahender Singh Dahiya

Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. State Through Cbi, New Delhi

Manjit Singh @ Mange V. Vs. Cbi, Through Its S.p.