Skip to content

Thadiyantevida Nazeer @ Ummer Haji @ Haji, Sidhique, Naser v. State of Kerala

  • Criminal

Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Section 7 – Sanction for prosecution the consent should be by the District Magistrate and the Central Government cannot be said to be the higher authority; especially when that Government does not exercise any control; supervisory or otherwise over the District Magistrate.

If it is permissible in law to obtain evidence from the accused person by compulsion, why tread the hard path of laborious investigation and prolonged examination of other men, materials and documents? It has been well said that an abolition of this privilege would be an incentive for those in charge of enforcement of law “to sit comfortably in the shade rubbing red pepper into a poor devil’s eyes rather than go about in the sun hunting up evidence”. (Stephen, History of Criminal Law, p. 442). State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad [1962 SCR (3) 10]

Present : *The Honourable Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran & The Honourable Mr. Kustice Ziyad Rahman A.A.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1699 & 1914 of 2011; 27 January 2022

Appellants : Suresh Babu Thomas For A1, K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan, S. Rajeev, V. Vinay; Respondents by Advs. Manu S., ASG of India, M. Ajay Spl. P.P. For NIA; Respodents in Crl.A. 1912 of 2011 by Advs. P.C. Noushad, P.K. Abdul Rahiman, P.K. Abdurahiman (Poolackal Karatchali), P.C. Noushad Public Prosecutor.