The seriousness and gravity of the offences for which the accused were convicted by the trial Court, and the failure of the High Court to consider the merits of the trial Court's judgment and order, justified the suspension of the impugned judgment and order.

ORDER

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court discharging the accused mainly on the ground of irregular and/or invalid sanction to prosecute Accused Nos. 1 to 5 and no sanction to prosecute at the time of taking cognizance by the learned trial Court, so far as A-6 and not deciding the appeals on merits, the State of Maharashtra has preferred the present Special Leave Petition(s).

2. We have heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra and Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of Accused No.6 (G.N. Saibaba) at length.

3. We have also gone through the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.

4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the learned trial Court, by a detailed judgment and order and on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 13, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 read with Section 120-B of the IPC.

5. The judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court was the subject-matter of the appeals at the instance of the respective accused including A-6. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has discharged the Accused No.1-5 (except Accused No.2, who died during the pendency of the proceedings), inter alia, on the ground that the sanction to prosecute those accused was vitiated and was invalid sanction as there was non-application of mind on the part of the sanctioning/review authority inasmuch as some material was not before the authority and no reasons were assigned while granting the sanction. Accused No.6 has been discharged on the ground that, at the time of taking cognizance and/or framing the charge, there was no sanction to prosecute A-6 at all.

6. It is required to be noted that, even according to Accused No.6, the appeals were argued on merits, the High Court has not entered into the merits of the case and considered anything on merits of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court.

7. Thus, it is an admitted position and even otherwise, it cannot be disputed that, while discharging the accused, the learned trial Court has not at all gone into the merits of the case and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, recorded while convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, including the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even the trial Court, the following important questions of law and facts arise to be determined/considered in the present Special Leave Petition by this Court.

1. Whether considering Section 465 Cr.P.C. whether after the conclusion of the trial and the accused is convicted on merits and on appreciation of evidences whether the appellate Court is justified in discharging the accused (so far as Accused Nos. 1 to 5 are concerned) on the ground of irregular sanction, if any?

2. In a case where the learned trial Court has convicted the accused on merits on appreciation of the evidences on record and thereafter having found the accused guilty for the offences for which they are tried, whether the appellate court is justified in discharging the accused on the ground of want of sanction and/or irregular sanction, more particularly, when the objection with respect to no sanction was not specifically raised by an appropriate application during the trial and trial was permitted to be proceeded further and thereafter the trial Court has convicted the accused on appreciation of evidences on record?

3. What will be consequences of not raising the dispute with respect to sanction during the trial and thereafter permitting the trial Court to proceed further, and despite the opportunities gi