Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
Surendra Kumar, son of Gobind Bhuiyan – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution case: gang extortion cash interception and seizure. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on mandatory uapa sanction timelines. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. uapa section 45 timelines strictly mandatory per supreme court. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. sanction granted beyond prescribed timelines invalid. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. impugned order quashed; ipc prosecution continues. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
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 receiv
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.
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....
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....
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
