Back
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
JAHIDUL ISLAM S/O KAJIMUDDIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent and Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Dy.SGI, appearing on behalf of the Union of India.
2. These two criminal petitions are taken up together for final hearing as the learned counsels for the parties urged that the cause of action and the challenge made in these two petitions arise out of same cause of action i.e. challenge to the proceedings under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short UA(P)Act, 1967) for want of sanction under Section 45 of the UA(P)Act. 1967 registered as Sessions Case No. 125/2023 arising out of Barpeta P.S. Case No. 175/2023 under Sections 120(B)/121/121-A of the IPC read with Section 10/13/18 of UA(P) Act,1967 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Barpeta. The further challenge is order dated 13.09.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge Barpeta, whereby Charges under section 10/13/18 of UA(P) Act, 1967, were framed against the petitioners.
3. Contentions of the petitioners:
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.
Absence of sanction can be raised and agitated at very inception but invalidity or illegality of sanction is to be raised during trial.
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....
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
