SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ker) 264

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
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. D. Arun Bose, Sri. K. Viswan.
For the Respondents: Dr. K.P. Satheesan (Sr.), (CBI), Sri. P. Sreekumar, Additional Solicitor General Of India, Sri. Sreelal N. Warrier, Spl. Public Prosecutor, CBI, Adv. Sri. Maheswar Padickal, Adv. Smt. Sreedevi Prathap, Adv. Smt. Srilakshmi T.S., Adv. Smt. Shilpa Sivan, Adv. Sri. Hareesh R.

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 such cases while ensuring compliance with procedural requirements.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 91 and 227 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 15(1)(a)(i), 16(a), 19, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 - Dismissal of discharge application and applications for production of documents regarding sanction for prosecution - The petitioners’ applications were dismissed as the trial court held that the validity of the sanction order could only be determined at trial. The court emphasized the need for adherence to procedural requirements under UAPA and the gravity of pending charges related to terrorist activities, including murder and use of explosives. (Paras 1-11)

(B) Sanction for Prosecution - Validity - The court noted the adherence to time limits prescribed by Rules 3 and 4 of UAPA (2008) in sanction issuance and stated various powers of the Central Government in prosecutorial matters. (Paras 10)

(C) Jurisdictional Authority - The central government’s jurisdiction in prosecuting under UAPA, irrespective of the place of occurrence, as long as the investigation was under its control was reasserted, with affirmations on the roles of the Advisory Committee and the requirements of evidence review before sanction. (Paras 36-40)

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top