BALBIR SINGH vs STATE OF DELHI

The Supreme Court held that the Designated Court's earlier order of 'acquittal' due to lack of sanction under Section 20-A(2) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA Act) did not constitute a true acquittal on merits, but rather an order of discharge. The Court clarified that without the necessary sanction, the court lacked jurisdiction to proceed, thus the subsequent cognizance taken after obtaining sanction was valid. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the continuation of proceedings under TADA and the Arms Act despite the earlier order.