Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
Surendra Kumar, son of Gobind Bhuiyan – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Judgment :
R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Special P.P. appearing for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XVIII cum Special Judge, ATS, Ranchi in ATS Court Case No. 1 of 2024 arising out of ATS P. S. Case No. 10 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the application dated 08.05.2024 filed by the prosecution for bringing on record the prosecution sanction under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has been allowed and the learned trial court has also directed the presence of the appellant and others for alteration/addition of charge for making amendment of charge.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a secret information was received by the S.P., ATS that on 20.07.2023 at about 3.00 p.m., the associates of Aman Srivastava gang is coming to Ranchi with a huge amount of cash, which they had collected from the coal traders, contractors, etc. as extortion money. After making a station diary entry, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi was requested to depute a Magistrate and a raiding party was constituted for verification
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.
Point of law : sanction under the UA(P)A granted after six months from the date of receipt of recommendation of the authority is not a valid sanction.
Cognizance of offence – Validity of sanction should be challenged at the earliest instance available, before Trial Court.
The court established that for offenses under the UA(P) Act, mere association with a terrorist organization is insufficient for conviction; intent to further the organization's activities must be pro....
Exclusion of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code is absolute for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, necessitating prima facie evidence for conside....
Sanction for prosecution of public servants must reflect independent assessment; repeated refusals by the authority, absent new evidence, undermine legitimacy of prosecution.
Prosecution sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be granted with independent application of mind; failure to comply invalidates proceedings.
Repeated litigation on issues already settled by the court constitutes an abuse of process, reinforcing the validity of prior rulings on matters like sanction for prosecution.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
