The judgment established the importance of sanction for prosecution under specific sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and emphasized the limits of police authority in laying charges.

Animadverting upon the judgment dated 17.02.2006 made in C.A.No.367 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore partly confirming the conviction imposed in the judgment dated 110. 2003 made in CC.No.93 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II Coimbatore, this criminal revision is focussed.

2.Tersely and briefly, pithily and precisely the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:

.(a) The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. as against two accused for the offences under Sections 10 and 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and 153 B(1)(c) IPC.

.(b) Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was conducted. During trial, on the prosecution side, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined, Exs.P1 to P7 and M.Os.1 to 14 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the accused.

.(c) Ultimately, the trial Court acquitted both the accused under Section 153 B(1)(c) IPC and recorded conviction and imposed sentence as under:

TABLE

Both the accused preferred appeal and the appellate Court acquitted the accused of the offences under Section 10 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 but found them guilty under Section 13 of the said Act and reduced the imprisonment from three years R.I. to one year R.I.

3. Challenging and impugning the judgments of both the Courts below, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:

Even though the Government granted sanction to prosecute the accused for the offence under Section 10 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short "The Act"), the police did choose to lay the police report as against both the accused for the offence under Section 13 of the Act also illegally. The appellate Court after acquitting the accused under Section 10 of the Act was not justified in convicting the accused under Section 13 of the Act because it is not backed by any sanction granted by the State Government.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The point for consideration is as to whether the conviction recorded by the First Appellate Court for the offence under Section 13 of the Act is bad for want of sanction to prosecute the accused. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that this a peculiar case in which the State Government itself thought fit to grant sanction under Section 17 of the Act to prosecute both the accused for the lighter offence contemplated under Section 10 and dropped the intended prosecution under Section 13 of the Act; however, shockingly and surprisingly, the police did choose to file the charge sheet both under Sections 10 and 13 of the Act, wherefore, the accused are very much prejudiced by it and they deserve acquittal.

6. Whereas, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would submit that the plea based on want of sanction for prosecuting the accused under Section 13 of the Act was not raised either before the trial Court or the appellate Court, and before the revisional Court such a plea cannot be raised. In support of his proposition he cited the following decisions of the Honble Apex Court:

1. (2007)1 SCC (cri) 193 [Prakash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others]. An excerpt from it would run thus:

"29. The effect of sub sections (3) and (4) of Section 19 of the Act are of considerable significance. In sub section (3) the stress is on "failure of the justice" and that too "in the opinion of the court". In sub section (4), the stress is on raising the plea at the appropriate time. Significantly, the "failure of justice" is relatable to error, omission or irregularity in the sanction. Therefore, mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is (sic not) considered fatal unless it has resulted in failure of justice or has been occasioned there