Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - s.20-A(1) - Conviction of appellant-accused by Designated TADA Court - Challenged -on ground of violation of the provisions contained under s.20(A)(1) - Held: The Parliament through s. 20-A has clearly manifested its intention to treat the offences under TADA seriously inasmuch as under s,20-A(1), notwithstanding anything contained in the CrPC, no information about the commission of an offence under TADA shall even be recorded without the prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police - It is not the requirement under s.20-A(1) to have the prior approval only in writing - Prior· approval may be either in writing or oral also - S.20(A)(1) is a mandatory requirement of Jaw - First, it starts with an overriding clause and, thereafter, to emphasise its mandatory nature, it uses the expression "No" after the overriding clause - Whenever the intent of a statute is mandatory, it is clothed with a negative command - Also, the requirement of s.20(A)(1) was introduced by way of an amendment with a view to prevent abuse of the provisions of TADA.:.. Thus, the Court while examining the question of complying with the said provision must examine it strictly - The requirement of prior approval must be satisfied at the time of recording the information - If there is absence of approval at the stage of recording the information, the same cannot be cured by subsequent carrying on of the investigation by the DSP - In the instant case, even verbal approval of the concerned authority was not obtained before recording the information -Therefore, the entire proceeding right from the registering of the FIR, filing of the charge-sheet and the subsequent trial was vitiated by a legal infirmity and there was a total miscarriage of justice in holding the trial, ignoring the vital requirement of law- Judgement of the Designated TADA Court therefore set  aside.