Point of Law: There is an underlying policy which is clearly discernible on a reading of the offences enumerated in S.196(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of which prior sanction is a must before cognizance of the offence under any of those provisions can be taken.

ORDER :

Under Challenge in these petitions is the common order passed by the Court of Session, Kozhikkode, as per which, the petitions filed by the revision petitioner under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) were dismissed.

2. In his petition seeking discharge, the petitioner had raised manifold contentions before the learned Sessions Judge. He contended that the cognizance taken by the Court of Session for the offence under Section 124A of the IPC was unsustainable as his prosecution sans the requisite sanction under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C was bad in law. He also raised a contention that the sanction obtained by the prosecution for prosecuting him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAP Act’ for the sake of brevity) could not be regarded as valid in view of the blatant violation of the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation And Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 (“Recommendation Rules, 2008” for the sake of brevity). Both these contentions did not find favour with the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, these revision petitions.

3. To appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner, it is necessary to have a brief understanding of the facts involved.

4. The petitioner is involved in three crimes, viz., Crime No.861 of 2013 registered at the Kuttiyadi Police Station, Crime No. 11 of 2014 and Crime No.15 of 2014 registered at the Valayam Police Station.

(a) The allegation in Crime No.861 of 2013 is that on 01.11.2013 at about 6 p.m., the petitioner along with five others, armed with guns and ammunition and being members of a banned Maoist organisation, visited the residential homes of certain persons at Viyyad Tribal Colony, and distributed pamphlets containing seditious writings. The Detecting Officer proceeded to the spot and the pamphlets were seized on receipt of information. He then went on to register a Crime alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(ii) of the IPC, Section 25(IA) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 10(1), 13(1) and 16(1)(b) of the UAP Act.

(b) The allegation in Crime No.11 of 2014 is that on 1.1.2014, the petitioner, along with four others, armed with guns, went to the residence of certain persons at Valiya Panom, Vilangad and demanded food. After having food, which was obtained after threatening the residents, they are alleged to have distributed pamphlets containing seditious writings. They are also alleged to have exhorted people to take up armed struggle against the State. On receipt of information, the concerned officer proceeded to the spot and seized the pamphlets, which contained seditious writings. He then registered a Crime under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(ii) r/w. Section 149 of the IPC, Section 25(IA) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 10(1), 13(1)(a) and 16(1)(b) of the UAP Act.

(c) In Crime No.15 of 2014, the allegation is that on 4.1.2014, at about 8.00 p.m., five armed vigilantes, being members of a proscribed terrorist organisation CPI (Maoist), visited the Panniyeri Tribal Colony and entered the houses of some of the residents and demanded food. While leaving, they are alleged to have distributed pamphlets containing seditious writings. A Crime was registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(ii) r/w. Section 149 of the IPC, Section 25(IA) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 10(1), 13(1)(a) and 16(1)(b) of the UAP Act.

5. Investigation in the aforesaid crimes was completed and final reports were laid. Certain offences were deleted and certain others were added. The records reveal that in all the three cases, the petitioner finds himself charge sheeted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 124A r/w Section 149 of the IPC and Sections 20 and 38 of the UAP Act.

6. Separate sanction orders were obtained under the Recommendation Rules, 2008 for prosecuting the petitioner. The investigation against the rest of the accused is pending.

7. The cases were taken c