Point of Law: Sec.39 of Arms Act deals with previous sanction of District Magistrate and it is stipulated therein that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person, in respect of any offence under Sec.3, without previous sanction of District Magistrate.

JUDGMENT :

Alexander Thomas, J.

The afore captioned criminal appeal has been filed by the State of Kerala, represented by the investigating agency concerned, under section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NIA Act’, for short) to challenge the impugned order dated 09.09.2020, rendered by the Sessions Court, Palakkad, on Criminal MP No.4387/2020 in Sessions Case, SC No.862/2016, whereby the respondent herein/accused has been discharged of the offences alleged against him, as per section 20 & 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘UAP Act’ for short) and Sec. 3 read with Sec. 25(1B) of the Arms Act.

2. Heard Sri.K.A. Anas, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant State of Kerala and Sri.K.S. Madhusoodhanan, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent/accused.

3. The instant sessions case, in which the respondent herein has been arrayed as the sole accused, has arisen out of Crime No.99/2014 of Agali Police Station, Wayanad District. The gist of the allegations raised therein is that the accused and 10 others have committed the offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148 & 506(ii) read with Sec.149 of the IPC, Sec.3, Sec.25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act and Sec.20, 38 of the UAP Act. The allegation is that on 03.01.2014 at about 7.30 a.m., the accused and another person had confined the de-facto complainant, one Sri.Dhwararaj, blind folded him with a black elastic material, brought him near Cherunellipetti river side, where nine other persons, including two women, were found, and some of them were carrying guns and sought information about places and the Malleswaram temple. The allegation is that the respondent/accused herein and the other persons claimed themselves as members of a banned Maoist organisation and that, they had threatened to kill the de-facto complainant, asking him not to disclose to anybody about the incident and thereafter, allowed him to leave the place and thus, he and 10 others have committed the abovesaid offences. The First Information Statement was, in fact, lodged only on 21.02.2014. The Investigating Agency completed the investigation and had submitted the final report/charge sheet, in the above crime, and the Sessions Court concerned, has taken cognizance of the case, which led to the institution of the instant Sessions Case, S.C. No.862/2016, on the file of the Sessions Court, Palakkad. It is common ground that in the final report/charge sheet filed, the respondent herein is arrayed as the sole accused and none of the other persons concerned have been implicated as accused.

4. However, the Sessions Court has taken cognizance only of the offences as per Secs.20 & 38 of the UAP Act and Sec.3 read with Sec.25(1)B of the Arms Act. The Sessions Court concerned has granted relief to the respondent herein, as per the impugned order, on the main ground that the sanction given by the State Government, under Sec.45(2) of the UAP Act, for prosecuting the accused for the offences punishable under Secs.20 & 38 of the UAP Act, and further, the sanction granted by the District Magistrate for prosecuting accused for the offences, as per the Arms Act, are vitiated.

5. It is on this ground that the Sessions Court has allowed the plea of the accused and has rendered the impugned order. The main issue is as to the correctness or otherwise of the abovesaid findings of the Sessions Court as per the impugned order that the sanction order granted under Sec.45 (2) of the UAP Act and the sanction granted under Sec.39 of the Arms Act are vitiated.

6. We shall initially deal with the issue as to the sanction granted under Sec.45(2) of the UAP Act, in respect of the alleged offences, as per Secs.20 & 38 of the UAP Act. Sec.45 of the UAP Act reads as follows:-

“45. Cognizance of offences.-1

[(1)] No court shall take cognizance of any offence-

(i) under Chapter III without the previous sanction of the Central Government or any officer authorise