Important points:
The time limit for making a recommendation by the authority. The concerned authority shall make its report containing the recommendations to the Central Government or to the State Government as the case may be within 7 working days of the receipt of the evidence gathered by the Investigating Officer. Rule 4 further indicates that the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, shall under sub-section (2) of S.45 of the Act, take a decision regarding sanction for prosecution within 7 working days after receipt of the recommendations of the authority.

JUDGMENT :

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

1. The above appeals have been preferred by accused 1 to 5 and also by the State representing the prosecuting agency. The accused 1 to 17 were charged for offences punishable under Sections 120B and 124A of I.P.C. Sections 10(a)(i), 10(a)(ii) and 13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as UAP Act). The prosecution allege that accused 1 to 17 assembled in an auditorium at Panayikulam on 15.8.2006. The meeting was arranged by accused 1 to 5 and attended by accused 6 to 17. The 13th accused was a juvenile and the case against him was split up to be considered separately and challenging the final report against him, he had filed Crl. M.C. No. 1538/17. According to the prosecution, accused 1 to 5 organised the secret meeting. They brought pamphlets containing anti-national, seditious and inflamatory writings with intend to bring hatred and contempt against Government of India. Accused 2 to 4 addressed the audience and advocated for cession of Kashmir through Jihad and for bringing back Muslim rule in India. The books and pamphlets brought by accused 1 to 5 were publications of Students Islamic Movement of India (‘SIMI’ for short), a banned organization. Prosecution allege that the meeting of SIMI was convened by the accused with intend to cause disaffection towards Government of India, to conduct Jihad for cession of Kashmir from India and to bring back Muslim rule in India. It is alleged that all the accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy and committed act of sedition and advocated, abetted and incited the commission of unlawful activities and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

2. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-50 and placed reliance upon Exts.P1 to P213. MO1 to MO10 were identified. After completing the requisite formalities of trial, the Special Court for NIA cases convicted accused 1 to 5 for offence u/s 120B r/w 124A of I.P.C. and Sections 10(a)(ii) and 13(1)(b) of the UAP Act. Accused 2 and 3 were convicted for offence punishable u/s 124A I.P.C. simplicitor as well. Accused 1 and 2 were convicted for the offence u/s 10(a)(i) of the UAP Act. Accused 1, 4 and 5 had been acquitted for the offence u/s 124A of I.P.C. The accused Nos. 6 to 12 and 14 to 17 were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.

3. First accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months on conviction u/s 120B r/w S.124A. of I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 8 months on conviction u/s 13(1)(b) of UAP Act, rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of which rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months on conviction u/s 10(a)(ii) of UAP Act; rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 months on conviction u/s 10(a)(i) of the UAP Act. 2nd accused had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months on conviction u/s 124A I.P.C. In respect of other offences, the same punishment given to first accused had been imposed on him. The 3rd accused had been given the same punishment as that of the 2nd accused on conviction u/s 124A I.P.C. 13(1)(b) and S.10(a)(ii) of UAP Act. The 4th accused had been imposed with punishment given to the first accused for offence u/s 120B r/w 124A of I.P.C. and the same punishment for the other accused for offence u/s 13(1)(b) and 10(a)(ii) of UAP Act. The 5th accused on conviction u/s 120B r/w 124A I.P.C. is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment the same as that of the first accused and also similar punishment for offence u/s 13(1)(b) and 10(a)(ii) of the UAP Act. The period of sentence was to run cons