JUDGMENT

I. MAHANTY, J. — The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Subhashree Das @ Milli Panda, Kishore Kumar Jena and Sangram Kumar Bhoi @ Sangram Bhola with a prayer to quash the proceeding in G.R. Case No.16 of 2010 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Banpur and S.T. No.12/116 of 2010 in the Court of learned Ad hoc Addl.Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Khurda arising out of Balugaon P.S. Case No.8 of 2010 corresponding to CID (CB) P.S. Case No.1 of 2010.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners inter alia, on the following grounds :

(A)Investigation not done by D.S.P., the competent officer empowered to investigate the case under the UAP Act.

(B)Sanction is not valid sanction.

(C)Documents relied on by prosecution has not formed part of the record.

(D)Proper Court has not taken cognizance.

(E)Court trying the case is not competent.

3.Learned Addl. Government Advocate, on the other hand, opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and made response to each of the contentions noted hereinabove.

4.Although various contentions were advanced in course of the argument, this Court is of the view that contention ‘B’ as noted hereinabove, ought to be dealt with at the outset, since the determination thereof would be vital for the purpose of ultimate outcome of the case and the other contentions may not be required to be determined.

5.Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners have been charged with the offences under Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 38 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the U.A.P. Act’) and for an offence under Chapters-IV and VI of the Act the previous sanction of the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government is required in term of Section 45 of the U.A.P. Act.

6.For better appreciation, Section 45 of the U.A.P. Act is quoted hereinbelow :

“45. Cognizance of offences. - (1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence -

(i)Under Chapter III without the previous sanction of the Central Government or any officer authorized by the Central Government in this behalf;

(ii)Under Chapters IV and VI without the previous sanction of the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government, and where such offence is committed against the Government of a foreign country without the previous sanction of the Central Government.

(2) Sanction for prosecution under Sub-section (1) shall be given within such time as may be prescribed only after considering the report of such authority appointed by the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government which shall make an independent review of the evidence gathered in the course of investigation and make a recommendation within such time as may be prescribed to the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government.”

On a conjoint reading of both the Sub-Sections (1) and (2) of Section 45 of the U.A.P. Act, it is clear therefrom that the State Government is required to “appoint an officer” to act as an “authority” for conducting an “independent review of the evidence gathered” in course of the investigation and such officer appointed to carry out independent review, shall make a “recommendation” within the time as may be prescribed “to the appropriate Government”.

7.Learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that incorporation of the requirement for appointment of an officer to conduct an “independent review”, as incorporated to Sub-section (2) of Section 45 of the Act, serves a very important purpose. The prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, is an extremely stringent law, Parliament provided a safeguard to avoid frivolous prosecution.

It is asserted that in the present case, the State of Orissa has not made “appointment” of any officer to carry out the “independent review” and further, there has been “no pres