LexFULESHWAR GOPE versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 315 : 2024 INSC 718 Fuleshwar Gope v. Union of India & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 3923 of 2024) 23 September 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the validity of the Sanction Order can be challenged at any stage; whether violation of s.45(2) of the UAPA r/w rr.3 and 4 of the 2008 Rules, if any, vitiates the proceedings, whether violation of statutory timelines and the requirement of independent review which includes application of mind, are necessary aspects of procedure; whether the appellant’s involvement were actually independent of the ones in which A-6 and other members were arrayed as accused; and whether the statutory exemption u/s.22 A of the UAPA applies to the appellant who claims to be unaware of the affairs of the company. Headnotes† Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s.45(2) – Cognizance of offences – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation & Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 – rr.3 and 4 – Time limit for making a recommendation by the Authority – Time limit for sanction of prosecution – Appellant’s case that he was made an accused and a member of the larger conspiracy – Allegations against him that on directions of A 6, a terrorist and chief of People’s Liberation Front of India-PLFI, the appellant formed a company, which used to directly/indirectly collect funds for the use of activities of PLFI; and that the appellant criminally conspired and formed an unlawful association with members of PLFI-A 7 and 14 – FIR against six persons alleging that Rs.25.83 lakhs of demonetized currency brought to the concerned Bank by A-6 – Appellant sought to quash suo motu letter in respect of the investigation; sanction letter granting sanction qua prosecution of the appellant as accused; and cognizance order under IPC and UAPA – Division Bench refused to quash the same – Challenge to: * Author 316 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Held: No infirmity in the order granting sanction against the appellant – It is not incumbent upon the authority to record detailed reasons to support its conclusion and, as such, the orders challenged, cannot be faulted with on that ground – Since trial is underway and numerous witnesses already stand examined, the challenge to the validity of the sanction qua the appellant left it to be raised before the trial judge – Whether or not both A-6 and the appellant are part of the same, continuing, ongoing transactions, is to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced at trial, and not at this stage, by this Court, thus, left to the appellants to raise this issue before the trial judge – Furthermore, as regards, application of exemption u/s.22A, this is a matter for the trial court to consider and not for this Court to decide at this stage, keeping in view that the trial is underway and proceeded substantially. [Paras 18, 41, 46, 50] Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s.45(2) – Cognizance of offences – Validity of Sanction Order – Challenged to, at what stage: Held: Validity of sanction should be challenged at the earliest instance available, before the Trial Court – If such a challenge is raised at an appellate stage it would be for the person raising the challenge to justify the reasons for bringing the same at a belated stage – Such reasons would have to be considered independently so as to ensure that there is no misuse of the right of challenge with the aim to stall or delay proceedings – On facts, keeping in view the submission made that the trial is underway and numerous witnesses (113 out of 125) already stand examined, no finding given on the challenge to the validity of the sanction qua the appellant and leave it to be raised before the trial judge, who shall, if such a question is raised decide, it promptly. [Paras 18, 51.1] Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s.45(2) – Cognizance of offences – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation & Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 – rr.3 and 4 – Time limit for making a recommendation by the Authority – Time limit for sanction of prosecution – Timelines in accordance with s.45(2) r/w rr.3 & 4 and the requirement of independent review, if necessary aspects of procedure, and non-adherence of which would vitiate proceedings under the UAPA: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 317 Fuleshwar Gope v. Union of India & Ors. Held: Timelines mentioned in rr.3 and 4 are
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.