1. Challenge to framing of charge and rejection of discharge application for offences under IPC and UA(P) Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Kar) 426
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.SANDESH, B.PRAMOD, JJ.
Syed Abbas S/O Syed Imtiyaaz – Appellant
Versus
National Investigating Agency, Ministry Of Home Affairs – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1313, 1180 OF 2025
Decided on : 03-09-2026
Important Points
At the stage of framing charges or considering a discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the court cannot conduct a "mini trial" to resolve contradictions in evidence or witness statements; such issues must be determined during the trial on merits.
Subject
Criminal Law - Special Acts / UA(P) Act
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 153A, 188, 353, 427, 435 read with 149 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 15, 16, 18, 20 and 43D - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 173(5), 227 and 228 - Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 - Framing of charges and discharge application - Scope of inquiry at the stage of framing charges - Court cannot conduct a "mini trial" to evaluate the veracity of evidence or resolve contradictions in witness statements; such matters are to be determined during the trial. (Paras 10, 13 and 14)
(B) Sanction - Validity of sanction order - If a sanction order is issued by a competent authority, any challenge regarding the lack of application of mind by the authority or the non-placement of all materials before the authority is a matter to be considered during the trial on merits. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
These appeals were filed challenging the framing of charges and the rejection of discharge applications in a case involving an attack on a police station, the burning of private and public vehicles, and the destruction of public property. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy to strike terror in the minds of the people, invoking various sections of the IPC, the UA(P) Act, and the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act. The appellants contended that the ingredients of the UA(P) Act were not made out, that there were contradictions between statements recorded by the State Police and the NIA, and that the sanction order was mechanically issued.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court had considered the material on record, including CDRs indicating the presence and contact of the accused, and witness statements. The court found that the allegations regarding conspiracy and the commission of terrorist acts required a full trial to be determined.
Issues: (i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in framing of charge against the accused for the offences of IPC as well as special enactment of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, as well as UA(P)A offences? (ii) Whether the appellants have made out a ground to discharge them by allowing the application filed for discharge?
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that at the stage of framing charges or considering a discharge application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., the court is not required to conduct a mini trial. Contradictions in witness statements, the identity of the accused, and the validity of the sanction (where issued by a competent authority) are matters of evidence to be tested during the trial through cross-examination.
Result: Both the appeals are dismissed.
(B) Sanction - Validity of sanction order - If a sanction order is issued by a competent authority, any challenge regarding the lack of application of mind by the authority or the non-placement of all materials before the authority is a matter to be considered during the trial on merits. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
These appeals were filed challenging the framing of charges and the rejection of discharge applications in a case involving an attack on a police station, the burning of private and public vehicles, and the destruction of public property. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy to strike terror in the minds of the people, invoking various sections of the IPC, the UA(P) Act, and the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act. The appellants contended that the ingredients of the UA(P) Act were not made out, that there were contradictions between statements recorded by the State Police and the NIA, and that the sanction order was mechanically issued.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court had considered the material on record, including CDRs indicating the presence and contact of the accused, and witness statements. The court found that the allegations regarding conspiracy and the commission of terrorist acts required a full trial to be determined.
Issues: (i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in framing of charge against the accused for the offences of IPC as well as special enactment of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, as well as UA(P)A offences? (ii) Whether the appellants have made out a ground to discharge them by allowing the application filed for discharge?
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that at the stage of framing charges or considering a discharge application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., the court is not required to conduct a mini trial. Contradictions in witness statements, the identity of the accused, and the validity of the sanction (where issued by a competent authority) are matters of evidence to be tested during the trial through cross-examination.
Result: Both the appeals are dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. SACHIN C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
For the Appellant :SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. SACHIN C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argued no prima facie case for UA(P) Act offences; respondent contended materials justified framing of charge. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Trial court correctly held that mini-trial is impermissible at framing/ discharge stage; contradictions are trial matters. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. At framing/discharge stage, court cannot conduct mini-trial; strong suspicion is sufficient to frame charge. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
5. Both appeals dismissed; orders framing charges and rejecting discharge application upheld. (Para 15 )
6. What is the scope of inquiry under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC at the stage of framing of charges?
The court cannot conduct a mini-trial; it must consider whether the material on record gives rise to strong suspicion of commission of offence. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
7. Can contradictions in witness statements be considered at the stage of framing of charges?
No, contradictions in witness statements are a matter for trial and cannot be examined at the stage of framing of charges or discharge. (Para 13 , 14 )
8. What is the validity of a sanction order and at what stage can it be challenged?
If issued by a competent authority, the validity of a sanction order on grounds of lack of application of mind is a matter for trial, not discharge. (Para 7 )
JUDGMENT :
H.P.SANDESH, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Special counsel appearing for the respondent in both the cases.
2. These two appeals are filed challenging the framing of charge and rejection of discharge application, respectively. In Crl.A.No.1313/2025, the appellants have sought the following prayers:
“(a) Call for the records of the Trial Court in Spl.C.No.141/2021, pending on file of Hon’ble XLIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for the trial of NIA Cases, (CCH-50), Bengaluru.
(b) To set aside the order dated 21.05.2025 framing charges under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 188, 353, 427 and 435 read with 149 of IPC, Sections 16, 18 and 20 of UA(P) Act, 1967, and Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981, at Annexure-A, wherein the appellants are arrayed as accused Nos.3- 6, 8-13, 19 and 21-23 respectively pending on file of Hon’ble XLIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for the trial of NIA Cases), (CCH-50), Bengaluru, in the interest of justice and equity.
(c) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. In Crl.A.No.1180/2025, the appellants have sought the following prayers:
“To set aside the impugned order dated 05.08.2024 at Annexure-A, and appreciate the discharge application filed by the appellants before the Trial Court same at Annexure-B, consequently discharge the accused/appellants from Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the UAPA Act i.e., schedule offences, in Spl.C.No.141/2021 for the offences punishable Sections 120B, 143, 145, 147, 188, 353 and 427 read with 34 and 149 of IPC, Sections 16, 18 and 20 of UA(P) Act, 1967, and Section 2 of the Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981, wherein the appellants are arrayed as accused Nos.3-6, 8-13, 19 and 21-24 respectively pending on file of Hon’ble XLIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for the trial of NIA Cases), (CCH-50), Bengaluru, in the interest of justice and equity.”
4. The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that the very initiation of criminal proceedings against the appellants is bad in law. The learned counsel though contend that prayer is sought for discharge of the accused for all the offences, including IPC and also Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UA(P) Act’ for short), he has restricted his prayer to discharge the appellants only in respect of offences under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of UA(P) Act in respect of Special Case No.141/2021, in connection with the incident of K.G.Halli Police Station. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court, a separate accusation made in respect of the accused persons in the charge-sheet. The learned counsel would mainly contend that the ingredients of UA(P) Act offences are not made out. The learned counsel also vehemently contend that case is filed against the accused persons in respect of burning of two wheelers and Innova car. The case in respect of this incident was at the first instance registered by State Police and recorded the statement of witnesses and subsequently, the matter was entrusted to National Investigating Agency (‘NIA’ for short) and NIA also conducted the investigation. It is also the contention that in connection with burning of bikes, four separate FIRs are registered by the State Police and the accused involved in burning of the vehicles in the said case are not the same accused as the ones indicated by NIA in the present case. The learned counsel also contend that even though the prosecution relies upon the video, the accused are not visible in the video footage doing illegal acts. The learned counsel also contend that the statements recorded by CCB and State Police are not made part of the charge-sheet by NIA. The learned counsel submits that the sanction has been issued without perusing the relevant documents and mechanically i
