Back
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL
Fuleshwar Gope – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave granted.
2. Impugned in this appeal by special leave is a judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dated 21st March, 2023 in W.P.(Crl.) No.443 of 2022, whereby the learned Division Bench refused to quash –
(b) Sanction letter No.11011/51/2017/NIA dated 22nd July, 2020 granting sanction qua prosecution of the present appellant as accused No.17 in R.C.-02/2018/NIA/DLI; and
(c) Cognizance order dated 25th July, 2020 u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 17, 18, 21 & 22 of U.A. (P) Act, 1967, u/S 17(i) & (ii) of CLA Act, 1908 and charges framed on 16th March, 2021 pending trial before the Court of learned Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi;
It is to be noted that initially quashing was also sought in respect of sanction vide letter No.06/Avi-01/21/2017-2637 dated 12th May, 2017 granted by the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prisons & Disaster Management, Ranchi. However, paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment records that this specific prayer was not pressed before it.
BACKGROUND FACTS
3
Cognizance of offence – Validity of sanction should be challenged at the earliest instance available, before Trial Court.
Point of law : sanction under the UA(P)A granted after six months from the date of receipt of recommendation of the authority is not a valid sanction.
Distinct charges must be tried separately under BSF Rules to ensure a fair trial and avoid prejudice, as each charge arises from unique circumstances.
Timelines in Rules 3 & 4 under Section 45(2) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act are mandatory; sanction beyond 7+7 working days invalid, cannot be added post-charge framing in penal proceedings.
The absence of sanction under Section 196 I.P.C. rendered the trial void ab initio, allowing for retrial after obtaining the required sanction.
Bail – Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. does not exclude offences under NDPS Act – Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21.
(1) Joint trial is a matter of judicial discretion – Joint or separate trial must ordinarily be taken at outset of proceedings and for cogent reasons.(2) Mere discovery of error, irregularity or omis....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
