Shaheen Zainab vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others

This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by accused No. 31 in Sessions Case No. 207 of 1993, which is a case filed under some sections of the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act and Explosives Substances Act, read with Ss. 3(1)(3) and 4 to 6 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ''TADA Act'').

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no accusation at all against the petitioner either of having committed an offence or having abetted the commission of any offence and that in the absence of an accusation either of committing an offence or having abetted the commission of such offence, the designated Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that merely because the District Magistrate has granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner under the provisions of the Arms Act, the designated Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case under the provisions of TADA Act and that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

He further argued that the only material sought to be relied upon by the prosecution is the alleged confession of the co-accused and even by relying upon the said confession, it does not amount to the abetment ''terrorist act''.

Even assuming what all the learned counsel submitted is correct, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned order by exercising jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution. When I questioned the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how this Court can interfere with the impugned order under the provisions of TADA Act, especially when the jurisdiction of this Court is excluded by the statute, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Madras High Court in D. Veerasekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, . The learned Judge, no doubt, had taken the view that when the findings of the subordinate Courts and Tribunals are perverse, it is open to the High Court to interfere with the same under Art. 227 of the Constitution. With great respect to the learned Judge, I cannot agree with that conclusion because the Legislature in its wisdom thought of excluding the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters governed by TADA Act. Section 19(1) of TADA Act provides an appeal from any judgment, sentence or order of a designated Court to the Supreme Court both on facts and on law. Section 19(2) of the Act specifically excludes the jurisdiction of any Court other than the Supreme Court by laying down that except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any Court from any judgment, sentence or order including an interlocutory order of a designated Court. The power of superintendence under Article 227 is exercised only to revise or set aside the order of a lower Court or Tribunal. It is only in the revisionary jurisdiction that the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution can be exercised.

When the Legislature has specifically excluded the power of appeal or revision to any Court other than the Supreme Court, what is prohibited by law in specific terms cannot be counteracted by the High Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Such an exercise of jurisdiction will only amount to assuming the jurisdiction which the legislature has specifically intended to exclude.

I am, therefore, not persuaded to follow the decision of the Madras High Court, referred to above, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. What cannot be done by the High Court directly cannot be done indirectly under the garb of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed at the stage of admission.

Petition dismissed.