When the chargesheet was filed, the learned Designated Judge on the basis of the aforesaid materials being of the opinion that there was numberapproval in writing of the companypetent authority the registration of the case under the TADA is bad in law, directed return of papers for being presented in appropriate forum.
The said Superintendent of Police on the self same day, i.e., on 6.1.1994, accorded approval in writing for registration of the case under Section 4 and 5 of TADA which however reached the Sub Inspector on the 7th of January 1994.
The said Superintendent of Police instructed the Sub Inspector to register the case and book the accused under Sections 4 and 5 of TADA in companypliance of which the Sub Inspector did register the case.
This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Designated Court, Karimnagar, returning the chargesheet to be filed before an appropriate companyrt by deleting Section 5 and 6 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 hereinafter referred to as TADA .
In Mohd.
The State of A.P. is in appeal against the aforesaid order.
When this matter came up before a Bench of this Court, as two divergent views of two Judge Benches of this Court were placed, the matter had been referred to us.
