Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 978
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Anand Teltumbde – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1916 of 2020
Decided On : 16-03-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Kapil Sibal, Mihir Desai, Aparna Bhat, Karishma Maria, Nizam Pasha, Raghav Tankha, A.M. Singhvi, Warisha Farasat, Amit, Shadan Farasat, Bharat Gupta, Shadan Farasat.
For the Respondents: Tushar Mehta, K.M. Natraj, Sonia Mathur, Kanu Agrawal, Swati Ghildiyal, Rajat Nair, Balram Das, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 43D(4) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 excludes the application of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in cases involving the arrest of persons accused of offences under the Act.
Headnote:
Section 43D(4) - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - The court held that the provisions contained in Section 43D(4) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 exclude the operation of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., and therefore, no case is made out to exercise the powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The court found that the provisions in Section 43D(4) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 exclude the operation of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., and therefore, the petitions were dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the petitions were not maintainable due to the bar contained in Section 43D(4) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and accordingly dismissed the special leave petitions. The petitioners were granted three weeks to surrender since they had enjoyed protection for approximately 1½ years.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in relation to cases involving the arrest of any person accused of having committed an offence punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 43D(4) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which explicitly excludes the application of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in cases involving the arrest of persons accused of offences under the Act.
Final Decision: The special leave petitions were dismissed, and the petitioners were granted three weeks to surrender, with the requirement to surrender their passport forthwith with the Investigation Agency/Officer.
ORDER :
1. We have not mentioned the facts in detail, as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. However, we are satisfied that in view of the provisions contained in Section 43D(4) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which exclude the operation of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. No case is made out to exercise the powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Section 43D(4) is extracted hereunder:
“Nothing in section 438 of the code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person accused of having committed an offence punishable under this Act.”
3. We are of the opinion that it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out. The petitions cannot be said to be maintainable in view of the bar contained in 43D(4) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. However, since the protection has been enjoyed by the petitioners approximately for 1½ years, three weeks time from today is granted to them to surrender. The petitioners shall surrender their passport forthwith with the Investigation Agency/Officer.
4. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
