UAPA prosecution sanctions in a CBI-investigated murder case were challenged as requiring State approval. The court upheld Central Government competence, left factual challenges to sanction validity and timelines to the Special Court, and dismissed the appeals, directing that trial issues be decided uninfluenced by the writ judgments.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942
WA.No.765 OF 2018
[AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATE 15.03.2018 IN WP(C) NO. 31229/2017 OF THIS COURT]
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
BY ADVS. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.) SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.K.SURESH SRI.K.VISWAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT OF INDIA, MINISTRY TO HOME AFFAIRS(INTERNAL SECURITY DIVISION), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
2
3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (HOME & VIGILANCE), GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI. P. VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA SRI. SUVIN R. MENON, CGC R2 BY ADV. SRI. SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR R3 BY SRI. SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SR. GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.01.2021, ALONG WITH W.A. NO.766/2018, THE COURT ON 05-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942
WA.No.766 OF 2018
[AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2018 IN WP(C) NO. 25403/2017 OF THIS COURT]
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
4
BY ADVS. SRI.B. RAMAN PILLAI (SR.) SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN SRI.K.VISWAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
R1 BY ADV. SHRI P. VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA R2 BY ADV. SRI. SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI. SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-01-2021, ALONG WITH W.A. NO.765/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
5
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2021
Shaji P. Chaly, J
The captioned appeals are filed by writ petitioners against the common judgment in W.P.(C) Nos.25403 & 31229 of 2017 dated 15.03.2018, by which, the learned single Judge has declined the reliefs sought for by them in the writ petitions.
reliefs:-
(i) To call for the records leading to Exhibit-P2 order dated 7.4.2015 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Internal Security Division), New Delhi and to quash the same by the issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order;
(ii) To set aside the order dated 11.03.2015 passed by the Sessions Court, Thalassery taking cognizance of the offence under Section 16-A read with Section 15(1)(a) (i) and Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 on the basis of Exhibit-P1 final report in S.C. No.200/2015 (now re-numbered as S.C. No.343/2017 and pending trial on the file of the Special Judge;s Court (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam;
(iii) To declare that the authority competent to grant sanction for prosecution of the petitioners in the case arising out of Crime No.780/2014 of Kadirur Police Station (R.C. No.10(S)/2014-CBI/SCB/Tvpm) is the Government of Kerala.”
reliefs:
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
6
(i) To call for the records leading to Exhibit-P3 order dated 9.5.2017 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Internal Security Division), New Delhi, and to quash the same by the issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order;
(ii) To declare that the authority competent to grant sanction for prosecution of the petitioners in the case arising out of Crime No.780/2014 of Kadirur Police Station (R.C. No.10(S)/2014-CBI/SCB/Tvpm) is the Government of Kerala under Section 45(1)(ii) of the UAPA.”
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
7
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
8
murder Elamthottathil Manoj, an office bearer of RSS and an accused involved in the attempt to murder Sri. P. Jayarajan, an office bearer and State Level leader of CPI(M), so as to prevent flow of CPI(M) party workers of Kannur district to BJP or RSS, and also to take political revenge on the attack on Sri.P. Jayarajan, the then District Secretary of CPI(M), Kannur. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, 1st accused Vikraman, a resident of Kizhakke Kathirur and an accused in many politically motivated criminal case, conspired with CPI(M) sympathizers and workers/office bearers with criminal background from Kathirur, Maloor, Koothuparambu, for committing murder of Manoj in a ghastly manner by inflicting bodily injuries with deadly weapons, so as to cause his death and kill him and also to explode one or more bombs with the intention to strike terror in the minds of the people of the locality and also in the rank and file of RSS cadre to which deceased Manoj belonged to. In furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, on 1.9.2014 around 9.30 am, under the leadership of the 1st accused Vikraman, 16 accused persons i.e., A1, A2, A4 to A10 and A13 to A19 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons like country bombs, Koduval, dagger etc., waited in a house under construction belonging to one Rijesh @ Riju, a contractor and CPI(M) worker, near Pattuvathu valavu, the scene of crime for the arrival of Manoj, the victim, likely to travel on the road from his residence at Kizhakke Kadirur towards
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
9
Ukkasmootta, with the intention to attack and kill him by inflicting injuries with deadly weapons and also to explode one or more bombs, in order to strike terror in the minds of the people of the locality and also in the rank and file of the RSS cadre to which deceased Manoj belonged to. The 1st accused also arranged an unknown accused person to give information regarding the departure of Manoj from his residence at Kizhakke Kadirur over phone. The 16 accused persons assembled at the unoccupied house under construction of Rijesh @ Riju, as specified above, and on getting information over phone from an unknown accused regarding departure of Manoj from his residence, the 16 persons armed with deadly weapons and country bombs waiting at the house under construction, rushed towards the road, barely 100 metres away and took positions on its sides with intent to kill Manoj and to strike terror in the minds of the people of the locality and also in the rank and file of the RSS cadre to which deceased Manoj belonged to. The accused have waited on the two cut roads leading towards the road, armed with deadly weapons, and crude bombs.
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
10
bomb hit on the vehicle and exploded, as a result of which, the vehicle got damaged and Manoj lost control of the vehicle. Both the passengers in the vehicle were injured from the blast and the vehicle hit on an electric post on the left side of the road and stopped. Hearing the sound of explosion, the locals living in the area got frightened, closed doors and windows, and hid themselves inside their houses. People working in the nearby areas in the open fields, ran away for safety. Meanwhile, some of the accused rushed towards the vehicle and covered it from the front and rear. Deceased Manoj, even though was injured by the blast, tried to hold the door of the vehicle, preventing the accused persons from opening the door. At that point of time, Prabhakaran, accused No.4, holding a long sword like weapon, approached from the front of the vehicle, cleared the broken windshield of the vehicle with the long blade of the weapon and inflicted a stab injury on the chest of Manoj. Thereafter, on seeing Manoj holding the door of the vehicle, he inflicted a cut injury on the right wrist of Manoj. Manoj left the hold on the door and other accused persons opened the right door of the vehicle and dragged Manoj, who was already seriously injured with the impact of the blast, out of the damaged vehicle. Then accused Nos.4, 13, 17, 18 and 19 hacked him indiscriminately with deadly weapons, in their possession, with the intention to kill him. The maximum number of injuries were inflicted on the vital parts of the body like chest and head. Pramod, who
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
11
was the co-passenger along with the deceased Manoj, injured with splinters of the bomb explosion, was trapped inside the vehicle, and was a mute witness to the attack.
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
12
the innocent public approaching the scene of crime and further explosion created more panic in the area.
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
13
have been committed within the jurisdiction of Principal Sessions Court, Thalassery and sought to take cognizance of in the matter. It was further stated in the final report that investigation revealed that there were more accused persons in the criminal conspiracy to execute the crime and to harbour the accused persons after the crime and they are yet to be identified and their relationship with the executors of the crime are to be established. Hence, they stated that investigation would be continued to identify and apprehend the remaining accused and also submitted that a supplementary charge sheet could be filed after identifying the remaining accused persons and their connection with the offences committed in the case.
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
14
cognizance taken by the Sessions Court, Thalassery is that in the absence of sanction under Section 45 (1)(ii) of the UAPA, insofar as it concerns accused Nos.1 to 19, and the invalidity of the sanction order, insofar as it concerns the accused Nos.20 to 25, is bad, and it will have to be considered in the back drop of the above facts taking into account the provisions of UAPA and National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, and other relevant statutory provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
15
Government and placed on record before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. Apparently, there was some confusion with respect to the Court, which can try the offence, since the allegations contained offences charged under the provisions of UAPA, 1967. Anyhow, ultimately by order dated 7.3.2017 in Crl.A. No.519 of 2017, the Hon'ble Apex Court had directed the proceedings be transferred to the Special Court at Ernakulam and the parties were directed to appear before the said Court on 10.04.2017.
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
16
accused persons who had not done any terrorist act, cannot be roped in under Section 16 r/w. 15 of the UAPA. In spite of the fact that accused Nos.5 to 10 and 13 to 15 have not committed any offences under the provisions of UAPA, the Central Government have granted sanction to all the accused, who even according to the prosecution, have not allegedly committed any terrorist acts, as enumerated under Section 15 of the UAPA. Therefore, the prime contention advanced was that it is evident that there was no application of mind, as mandated in law.
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
17
the scene of occurrence as per scene mahazar and expert report. Therefore, it is contended that the allegation of second bomb explosion was made only to attract Section 15 of the UAPA and there is no witness cited by the CBI to show that accused No.16 hurled the bomb while people of the area were advancing towards the scene of occurrence.
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
18
1967, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as, the 'DSPE Act, 1946), learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the charge alleged against the accused persons under the UAPA cannot be sustained primarily for the reason that there was no sanction to prosecute accused Nos.1 to 19 and the sanction granted against all the accused is without verifying the entire documents and, therefore, invalid. However, the learned single Judge, taking into account the attendant facts and circumstances, partly allowed the writ petition leading to W.A. 766 of 2018 concluding that the cognizance taken by the Sessions Court, Thalassery, for offences punishable under the provisions of UAPA, as against accused Nos.1 to 19, even prior to the sanction order, is bad in law and declared so. Therefore, it was held that it has to be treated that no cognizance as such has been taken. It was accordingly, the learned single Judge directed the Special Court where the final report is presently submitted that it shall apply its mind as against accused Nos.1 to 19 afresh, in the light of the final report and the sanction, and decide whether cognizance can be taken or not. It was further held that if the Special Court decides to take cognizance, there is no need for allotting a separate number to the case, since the cognizance taken for other offences is unaffected and remains to be valid. Insofar as the allegation of invalidity of the sanction order was
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
19
concerned, against accused Nos.20 to 25 and other accused, the writ petitions were dismissed holding that validity of a sanction has to be looked into by the trial court during trial. Anyhow, the reliefs sought for, for a declaration that the State Government is the authority competent to grant sanction was completely declined. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the common judgment of the learned single Judge dated 15.03.2018 passed in the writ petitions, stated supra, these appeals are filed.
UAPA, 1967, dealing with cognizance of the offences, which reads thus:
“ 45. Cognizance of offences .
(1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence--
(i) under Chapter III without the previous sanction of the Central Government or any officer authorised by the Central Government in this behalf;
(ii) under Chapter IV and VI without the previous sanction of the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government, and if such offence is committed against the Government of a foreign country without the previous sanction of the Central Government.
(2) Sanction for prosecution under sub-section (1) shall be given within such time as may be prescribed only after considering the report of such authority appointed by the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government which shall make an independent review of the evidence gathered in the course of investigation and make a recommendation, within such time as may be prescribed, to the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government.”
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
20
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
21
the Central Government to grant sanction.
“ 43. Officers competent to investigate offences under Chapter IV and VI
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
22
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no police officer,-
(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, constituted under sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank;
(b) in the metropolitan areas of Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai and Ahmedabad and any other metropolitan area notified as such under subsection (1) of section 8 of the Code, below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner of Police;
(ba) in the case of National Investigation Agency, below the rank of Inspector;
(c) in any case not relatable to clause (a) or clause (ba), below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of an equivalent rank;
Shall investigate any offence punishable under Chapter IV or VI.”
that it is not the area in question that is to be taken into account, in the matter of granting sanction. Because, under sub-section (i) of Section 45(1) though not applicable in the appeals at hand, it is specified that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under Chapter III, without the previous sanction of the Central Government or any officer authorised by the Central Government in this behalf. Chapter III deals with offences and penalties for being a member of an unlawful association and wherever it takes place within the territory of India, a sanction from the Central Government or any officer appointed in that behalf is to be secured irrespective of the investigating agency.
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
23
Therefore, according to us, the provisions of Section 45 makes it clear that it is not the place of occurrence that matters, but the investigating agency is what matters. That means, as per Section 45(1)(ii) a clear segregation is made by which both, the State and the Central Government agencies are vested with the powers to conduct investigation and submit a final report before the competent court and if an investigation was conducted by a State agency in the instant case the State Government had the power to grant sanction.
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
24
may constitute a special force to be called as Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation in any Union Territory of offences notified under Section 3. However, fact remains that as per Section 5 of the DSPE Act, 1946, the Central Government is vested with powers by order extend to any area, including railway areas, in a State, not being a Union territory, the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation of any offences or classes of offences specified in a notification under Section 3. Section 5 of the Act reads thus:
“ 5. Extension of powers and jurisdiction of special
police establishment to other areas .- (1) The Central Government may by order extend to any area (including Railways areas), in a State, not being a Union territory]] the powers and jurisdiction of member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation of any offences or classes of offences specified in notification under section 3.
(2) When by an order under sub-section (1) the powers and jurisdiction of members of the said police establishment are extended to any such area, a member thereof may, subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, discharge the function of a police officer in that area and shall, while so discharging such functions, be deemed to be a member of a police force of that area and be vested with the powers, functions and privileges and be subject to the liabilities of a police officer belonging to that police force.
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
25
(3) Where any such order under sub-section (1) is made in relation to any area, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2) any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment of or above the rank of Sub-Inspector may subject to any orders which the Central Government may make in this behalf, exercise the powers of the officer in charge of a police station in that area and when so exercising such powers, shall be deemed to be an officer in charge of a police station discharging the functions of such an officer within the limits of his station.”
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
26
conducts an investigation into any offence within the State, it is never under the control of the state government especially due to the fact there is no enabling provision under any one the acts discussed above to do so. Which thus means the central agency conducting the investigation is always under the control of the Central Government and that power under any circumstances is not conferred on the State Government even while conducting an investigation within a state . Moreover, the UAPA, 1967 is an Act also to provide for the more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations and for dealing with terrorist activities and for matters connected therewith. The statement of objects and reasons shows that it was pursuant to the acceptance by Government of a unanimous recommendation for the Committee on National Integration and Regionalism appointed by the National Integration Council, the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 was enacted empowering the Parliament to impose, by law, reasonable restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, on (i) Freedom of speech and expression; (ii) Right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and (iii) Right to form associations or unions.
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
27
2002 were being grossly misused in the past two years and it was felt necessary to repeal the Act. It was with the objective, the amendment Ordinance was promulgated on 21.09.2004 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2004 replaced the Ordinance, also with the objective to make further provisions with the aim of strengthening the arrangements for speedy investigation, prosecution, and trial of cases related to terrorism related offences, while, at the same time, ensuring against any possible misuse of such provisions. That apart, in our view, Section 45 makes it clear that sanction for prosecution under sub-section (1) of Section 45 would be given after considering the report of such authority appointed by the Central Government, or as the case may be, the State Government, and it shall make an independent review of the evidence gathered in the course of investigation and make a recommendation within such time as may be prescribed to the Central Government, or as the case may be, the State Government. Therefore, it is taking note of the objects and reasons of the provisions of UAPA, such a safety measure is incorporated under Section 45, which thus means, an independent authority appointed by the Central Government, makes an independent review of the evidence gathered in the course of investigation and make a recommendation to the Central Government or the State Government as to whether a sanction is to be granted or not. Therefore, sufficient safety vault is provided to ensure that unnecessarily
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
28
the provisions of Act, 1967 is not incorporated in any final report submitted by an investigating agency and therefore prima facie we will have to presume that the actions were done by the respective authorities in accordance with law until otherwise proved by the appellants.
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
29
“ 3. Time limit for making a recommendation by the Authority .-The Authority shall, under sub-section (2) of section 45 of the Act, make its report containing the recommendations to the Central Government [or, as the case may be, the State Government] within seven working days of the receipt of the evidence gathered by the investigating officer under the Code.
4. Time limit for sanction of prosecution .- The Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government shall, under sub-section (2) of section 45 of the Act, take a decision regarding sanction for prosecution within seven working days after receipt of the recommendations of the Authority.”
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
30
is shrouded in facts, which could only be deciphered by a fact finding authority and in this case, the Special Court, wherein the final report is submitted against the appellants. Therefore, we are unable to consider the contentions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in that regard also.
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
31
persons is designated as “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is,-
First .- xx xxxx xxxxx
Second .- To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
Third .- To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
Fourth .- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
Fifth .- xx xxx xxxx.
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
32
the IPC, there can be no unlawful assembly and the guilt of the offence under Section 149. Moreover, Section 15 of the UAPA under Chapter IV dealing with punishment for terrorist activities comprehends various manifestations in the Terrorist act, which reads thus:
“ 15. Terrorist Act .--
(1) Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country,--
(a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological radioactive, nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause--
(i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or
(ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property; or
(iii) disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community in India or in any foreign country; or
xx xx xxx xxxx”
that it is not only that act contemplated under Section 15(1) alone,
which enables an investigating agency to attribute the offences under the UAPA against the persons who are in the assembly. Anyhow, we are
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
33
not finally concluding anything on those aspects, since if we traverse too much through the same, it is likely to affect the defense of the appellants at the trial stage in that regard. But we only intended to say that merely because Section 149 of the IPC is not incorporated under Section 40 of the IPC, that will not disable the investigating agency to rope in other persons who were in the assembly under the UAPA, and we are constrained to say so, so as to arrive at conclusions to meet up with the points raised in the appeals and canvassed at the time of hearing.
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
34
find much force in the said contention, since such a provision is incorporated under Section 5 of the DSPE Act, 1946 for ensuring that the investigating officer appointed under the said Act is enabled with sufficient powers so as to act as a police officer and that does not mean, that police officer is liable to report to the State Government for securing sanction, which thus means, Section 5(3) is intended to clothe the CBI with sufficient powers so as to carry on with the investigation and that does not mean that the CBI has to report to the State Government for securing sanction.
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
35
“12. In this case, admittedly the committee itself has been constituted by the State Government under Section 45 (2) of the Act, only in the year 2011 by virtue of G.O. Ms. No. 208 dated 25.03.2011. In this
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
36
case, the final report has been filed in the year 2009 and admittedly there was no independent authority that was in existence on the day the sanction was granted by the State Government by letter dated 31.08.2009 and therefore, the very sanction that was granted becomes vitiated. Even though it is true that the Central Government has given permission for the State Government to exercise the power to grant sanction for prosecution, the State Government can proceed to grant sanction only after getting the report of the independent committee which was constituted under Section 45 (2) of the Act. This mandatory requirement has not been fulfilled in this case. Therefore, the very sanction is non est in the eye of law.
“10. In view of the conclusions/finding reached hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that, no cognizance could have been taken against the Petitioners in the absence of any valid sanction of the prosecution and in this regard, although sanction
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
37
for prosecution had been obtained, yet the same was not based upon a review by a validly appointed authority to carry out "independent review of evidence" obtained in course of investigation. Therefore, the very foundation for obtaining such sanction being not in consonance with law, the order of cognizance dated 16.7.2010 passed by the learned J.M.F.C, Banpur in G.R. Case No. 16 of 2010 ought to be quashed and this Court directs accordingly.”
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
38
Andhra Pradesh reported in (1979) 4 SCC 172, in regard to sanction under Sections 5 and 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It was also a case considered in appeal and ultimately the conclusions arrived at were on the basis of evidence let in by the parties and the findings in respect of the sanction given by the appropriate statutory authority.
W.As.765 & 766 of 2018
39
Sessions Court, Thalassery, by virtue of the provisions of the UAPA, 1967, and the case was later transferred to the Special Court on account of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as discussed above.
In the light of the discussion made above, we do not find any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity on the part of the learned single Judge, in exercising the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, upshot of the above discussion is that the appeals are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, we do so. However, we make it clear that the trial court shall not be influenced by the findings and observations made in the judgments rendered by the learned single Judge, and us, as above, in considering any issues at any stage of the proceedings, in accordance with law.
Sd/- S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE
Krj
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
2 issues framed by the court
Was the Central Government competent to grant UAPA prosecution sanction where the CBI investigated offences committed within Kerala?
Could factual objections to sanction validity and compliance with prescribed timelines be determined in writ proceedings while trial was pending?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hitendra Vishnu Thakuar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.Distinguished¶237
AIR 1994 SC 2623 · Who else cites this
Ashrafkhan and Ors v. State of GujaratDistinguished¶237
(2012) 11 SCC 606 · Who else cites this
The State of Maharashtra v. Harshed K. Shah and Ors.Distinguished¶240
(1981) CriLJ 1096 · Who else cites this
Vaiko v. The State of TamilnaduDistinguished¶248
2018 (2) LW (Crl) 846
Subhashree Das and Ors. v. State of OrissaDistinguished¶249
[2011 (11) OLR 1000]
Roopesh v. State of Kerala and Ors.Referred¶255
2019 (4) KLT 219
Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra PradeshDistinguished¶259
(1979) 4 SCC 172 · Who else cites this
Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh and AnotherReferred¶261
(2012) 3 SCC 64 · Who else cites this
10 provisions across 5 enactments
T.I. MADHUSOODANAN
P. JAYARAJAN
VIKRAMAN
UNION OF INDIA
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
STATE OF KERALA
S. MANIKUMAR
SHAJI P. CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
