Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
VINAY JOSHI, VALMIKI S.A. MENEZES, JJ.
Mahesh Kariman Tirki – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 136, 137 of 2017
Decided On : 05-03-2024
JUDGMENT :
VINAY JOSHI, J.
1. Heard.
2. Common judgment and order of conviction dated 07.03.2017 in Sessions Case Nos. 13/2014 and 130/2015 under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the UAPA’ for short) and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for short) led convicted accused to challenge the judgment and order by filing two separate appeals.
3. On 22.08.2013, Crime No. 3017/2013 was initially registered with the Police Station Aheri, District Gadchiroli against the appellant Mahesh Tirki (accused No. 1), Pandu Narote (accused No. 2) and Hem Mishra (accused No. 3). During the course of investigation, the role of Prashant Sanglikar (accused No. 4), Vijay Tirki (accused No. 5) and G.N. Saibaba (accused No. 6) was revealed. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed and numbered as Sessions Case No. 13/2014. It was followed by filing of supplementary charge-sheet on 31.10.2015 numbered as Sessions Case No. 130/2015.
4. After ensuring compliance in terms of Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short), the Trial Court framed charges on 21.02.2015 against all six accused for the offence punishable under Sections 10, 13, 20, 38, 39 read with Section 18 of the UAPA and under Section 120-B of the IPC. On the accused pleading to be tried, the prosecution has examined as many as 25 witnesses to establish the guilt of accused. The prosecution was also banking upon certain documents to establish the guilt with requisite standard of proof. On completion of evidence, statements of accused were recorded in terms of Section 313 of the Code to seek their explanation on incriminating material. The defence of the accused is of total denial and false implication. The accused have denied seizure of incriminating material from their possession claiming it to be planted and fabricated. The accused did not examine any witnesses in defence. On the assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has recorded a finding of guilt against all the accused vide impugned common judgment. The Trial Court has convicted all accused for different offences and imposed punishment alongwith fine. For the sake of convenience, we deem it appropriate to set out the details of conviction and sentence of each of them in following table:
| S. No. | Names | Conviction | Sentence |
| 1. | Accused 1-Mahesh Kariman Tirki, Accused 2-Pandu Pora Narote, Accused 3-Hem Keshavdatta Mishra, Accused 4-Prashant Rahi Narayan Sanglikar, Accused 6-Gokalkonda Naga Saibaba | Section 13 of the UAPA read with Section 120-B of the IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each |
| Section 18 of the UAPA read with Section 120-B of the IPC | Imprisonment for Life each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Six Months | ||
| Section 20 of the UAPA read with Section 120-B of the IPC | Imprisonment for Life each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Six Months each | ||
| Section 38 of the UAPA read with Section 120-B of the IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Six Months each | ||
| Section 39 of the UAPA read with Section 120-B of the IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Six Months each | ||
| 2. | Accused 5-Vijay Nan Tirki | Section 13 of the UAPA read with Section 120-B of the IPC | Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Six Months |
| Section 18 | |||
gpt-4
Absence of sanction can be raised and agitated at very inception but invalidity or illegality of sanction is to be raised during trial.
A valid sanction under Section 45(1) of the UA(P) Act, 1967, is essential for a court to take cognizance of offenses under Part-III, and failure to obtain such sanction renders the proceedings invali....
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.
The timing for raising issues regarding absence or vitiation of sanction is crucial, and a mere error, omission, or irregularity in sanction is not fatal unless it results in the failure of justice o....
The judgment establishes the principle that bail may be rejected if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations made are prima facie true, especially in cases involving serious of....
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
