Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Bom) 2106

ROHIT B. DEO, ANIL L. PANSARE
Mahesh Kariman Tirki – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Pradeep Mandhyan with Mr. Barunkumar and Mr. H.P. Lingayat, Counsel., for the appellants in Criminal Appeal 136/2017; Mr. Subodh Dharmadhikari, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N.B. Rathod, Counsel, for the appellant in Criminal Appeal 137/2017; Mr. Siddharth Dave, Special Public Prosecutor-Senior Counsel and Mr. H.S. Chitaley, Assistant Special Public Prosecutor, for the respondent/State

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The sanction under Section 45(2) must be given after considering the independent review report; a laconic or non-reasoned report renders sanction invalid. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Absence or egregious defects in sanction strike at the root of the trial’s jurisdiction; cognizance without valid sanction renders proceedings void. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Time limits for making recommendations and granting sanction (2008 Rules 3-4) are mandatory in wording but may be interpreted as directory in application; substantial compliance and demonstration of failure of justice are considered. (!) (!) (!) (!)

What is the impact of invalid or absent sanction under Section 45 UAPA on cognizance and trial?

What is the court's stance on whether the time limits for recommendations and sanctions under 2008 Rules are mandatory or directory?

What are the consequences when sanction under Section 45 is defective or not properly considered by the sanctioning authority?

Table of Content
1. court's reasoning and legal findings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments raised regarding the validity of the prosecution. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. conclusion and orders regarding the case. (Para 8 , 9)
4. description of events leading to prosecution. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT

Rohit. B. Deo, J. - Criminal Appeal 136/2017 and Criminal Appeal 137/2017 emanate from the common judgment dated 07-3-2017 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, whereby the appellants are convicted for offences punishable under Sections 13 , 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ( UAPA ) read with Section 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) as set out infra.

Table

2. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION :

(i) Assistant Police Inspector (API)-Atul Shantaram Awhad (PW 6), who was then attached to the Special Branch, Gadchiroli, received secret information that accused 1-Mahesh Tirki and accused 2- Pandu Narote were active members of the banned terrorist organisation CPI (Maoist) and its frontal organisation Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF), and were abetting and assisting the hardcore underground cadre of the CPI (Maoist) by providing information and material and faci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Bom) 2106

ROHIT B. DEO, ANIL L. PANSAREMahesh Kariman Tirki – AppellantVersusState of Maharashtra – Respondent

What is the impact of invalid or absent sanction under Section 45 UAPA on cognizance and trial?

What is the court's stance on whether the time limits for recommendations and sanctions under 2008 Rules are mandatory or directory?

What are the consequences when sanction under Section 45 is defective or not properly considered by the sanctioning authority?

Cases Referred (35)

ROHIT B. DEO, ANIL L. PANSARE
Mahesh Kariman Tirki – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent