IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JOBIN SEBASTIAN, JJ.
Vikraman – Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Special Crime Branch, Represented By Superintendent of Police, CBI/SCB, Thiruvananthapuram – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet. No.293 of 2023, Crl.M.C. No.3117 of 2023, Crl.M.C. No.3238 of 2023
Decided On : 10-04-2026
ORDER :
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
As all these three cases involve a common issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common order.
2. Crl.R.P.No.293 of 2023 is preferred against an order dated 21.03.2023 in S.C.No.343 of 2017 of the Additional Special Sessions Judge (SPE/CBI)–III), Ernakulam. By the said order, an application for discharge preferred by the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C”] was dismissed by the trial court. Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 and 3238 of 2023 impugn a common order dated 09.03.2023 in Crl.M.P.Nos.2978 and 2979 of 2022 in S.C.No.343 of 2017 before the Additional Special Sessions Judge (SPE/CBI)–III, Ernakulam. By the common order aforesaid, applications preferred by the petitioners under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C seeking production of files in connection with the sanction granted for prosecuting them for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act [hereinafter referred to as the “UAPA”] stood rejected by the trial court.
3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these cases are as follows:
The petitioners are accused nos.1 to 25 in S.C.No.343 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Special Sessions Judge (SPE/CBI)–III, Ernakulam. They are charged for the offences under Sections 120B read with Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 read with Sections 302, 201, 202, 212, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and Section 16(a) read with 15(1)(a)(i) and Section 19 of the UAPA, Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The case of the prosecution was that on 01.09.2014, one Elamthottathil Manoj was murdered and another person, namely, Pramod was seriously injured in an attack allegedly committed by the petitioners. Crime No.780 of 2014 was registered by the Kadirur Police Station alleging commission of offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC; under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosives Substances Act and also under Section 13(1)(a) of the UAPA. Subsequently, a report was filed deleting Section 13(1)(a) of UAPA and adding Section 16(1)(a) of UAPA. The investigation in the matter was initially transferred from the local police to the Crime Branch on the same day as the incident and later the matter was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI] which re-registered the crime as R.C.No.10(S)/2014- CBI/SCB/TVPM on 28.10.2014. After completing the investigation, a final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. was filed against revision petitioners/accused nos.1 to 19 on 06.03.2015 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. The final report cited 202 witnesses, 64 documents and identified 53 material objects. The final report also stated that the investigation will be continued to identify and apprehend the remaining accused. The learned Sessions Judge, Thalassery took cognizance of the offence under Section 120B read with Sections 143, 147, 148, 201, 202, 212, 324, 307, 302, 149 IPC; Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 16(a) read with Section 15(1)(a)(i) and Section 19 of UAPA and Section 27 of Arms Act. The case was numbered as S.C.No.200 of 2015 before the Sessions Court Thalassery. The CBI thereafter filed a supplementary final report on 29.08.2017 against accused nos.20 to 25 alleging commission of offence under Section 120B read with Sections 143, 147, 148, 201, 202, 212, 324, 307, 302, 149, Section 18 read with Section 15(1)(a)(i) and 16(A) and Section 19 of UAPA, Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 27 of Arms Act. In the said report, the CBI cited 70 additional witnesses and produced 60 documents and one material object. In the meanwhile, as per an order dated 07.03.2017 of the Supreme Court in Crl.Appeal No.519 of 2017, the case was transferred to the Additional Special Sessions Judge (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam. Accused nos.3, 11 and 12 were enlarged on bail by this court vide ord
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....
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.
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....
A valid sanction for prosecution requires a thorough application of mind by the sanctioning authority; failure to meet this standard renders the sanction invalid.
The court emphasized that the validity of sanction for prosecution can be examined at any stage, including pre-trial, to ensure due process and prevent injustice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.