Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
BUDI HABUNG
Techi Bidu Son of Shri Techi Chupe – Appellant
Versus
State of AP and Anr represented by the PP of AP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case and allegations (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's argument on lack of requisite sanction (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. prosecution's response to the petitioner's argument (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's legal reasoning on mandatory sanction requirement (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. conclusion regarding quashing of charges and continuation of trial (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
ORDER
Heard Mr. T. Topu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.T. Ete, learned Addl Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present applicant under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS S ), has been filed seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in Session Case No. 07/2025, pending before the Court of Sessions Judge, Yupia, arising out of Itanagar P.S. Case No. 06/2025 under Sections 147 /149/150 of BNS , R/W Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 25(1) (1B) (a), 27(1) of the ARMS ACT , 1959.
3. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner, being part of an organization under a self-proclaimed named Nationalist Socialist Council for Tani Land (NSCT) was formed under the self-proclaimed Commander- in-Chief, Anthony Doke was involved
Absence of prior sanction under UAPA renders prosecution invalid, confirming necessity for compliance with procedural mandates in special laws.
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....
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.
Prolonged delays and lack of sufficient evidence in criminal proceedings lead to quashing of charges, as continued prosecution serves no justice, particularly with hostile witnesses and absent key te....
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 court affirmed that the validity of sanction for prosecution under the UAPA can only be examined during trial, upholding the principle of jurisdictional authority of the Central Government in suc....
The validity of prosecution sanction must be evaluated at trial; minor irregularities do not nullify proceedings without evident failure of justice.
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
