MOHAMMED ASARUDEEN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: [2025] 5 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 06-05-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 707 : 2025 INSC 746
Mohammed Asarudeen 
v. 
Union of India & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2443 of 2025)
06 May 2025
[Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Special Court while dealing with an application under 
sub-section 2 of s.44 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 
made in respect of a large number of witnesses, recorded the 
satifaction which is required to be recorded in terms of sub-section 2 
of s.44 of UAPA. Whether the satisfaction as required by sub-section 2 
of s.44 of UAPA was recorded qua an individual witness.
Headnotes†
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sub-section 2 
of s.44 – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – s.17 – 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.173(6) – Appellant 
was tried by the Special Court for the National Investigation 
Agency cases – Charge-sheet was filed – An application was 
made by the Special Public Prosecutor of the NIA, invoking 
powers of the Special Court u/s.44 of the UAPA, r/w. s.17 of 
the NIA Act, 2008 r/w. s.173(6) of CrPC, for the protection 
of witnesses, which was allowed – The order of the Special 
Court was challenged before the High Court – The result of the 
impugned order passed by the High Court is that, in relation 
to the witnesses mentioned in clause 1 of paragraph 6 of the 
order of the Special Court, the accused will not be entitled 
to the copies of the statements of such witnesses recorded 
u/s.161 of the CrPC even after examination-in-chief of the said 
witnesses is recorded – Correctness:
Held: On plain reading of sub-section 2 of s.44 of the UAPA, the 
Court has to apply its mind in relation to danger to a particular 
witness – An omnibus application cannot be made by the Special 
Public Prosecutor for the grant of protection under sub-section 
2 of s.44 for all witnesses or a number of witnesses – Even if 
an application is made in respect of more than one witness, 
* Author
708
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
specific averments in relation to every witness must be made in 
the application – In view of this Court, sub-section 2 of s.44 of 
the UAPA (sub-section 2 of s.17 of NIA) must be strictly complied 
with, as the exercise of the power may affect the right of the 
accused to defend – On facts, the Special Court was dealing 
with an application where the prayer under sub-section 2 of s.44 
of UAPA was made in respect of a large number of witnesses – 
The Special Court has not considered the case of each witness 
separately regarding the possible dangers to their lives – The Court 
has also not recorded satisfaction based on material that the life 
of a particular witness is in danger – A very general observation 
has been made that, in the interests of justice, the Court feels that 
the identity of the witnesses can be hidden till the examination in 
chief of the witnesses is recorded – The order of the Special Court 
cannot be sustained – The first satisfaction, which is required to be 
recorded in terms of sub-section 2 of s.44 of UAPA, has not been 
recorded – Similarly, the observation of the High Court completely 
ignores the second part of sub-section 2 of s.44 of the UAPA – 
Both the Courts have lost sight of the fact that the satisfaction as 
required by sub-section 2 of s.44 of UAPA has to be recorded qua 
an individual witness – Therefore, both the orders are set aside. 
[Paras 11, 12, 14]
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sub-section 2 of 
s.44 – Recording of satisfaction:
Held: The first condition precedent for the exercise of powers 
under sub-section 2 of s.44 of UAPA is the recording of the 
satisfaction by the Special Court that the life of the concerned 
witness is in danger – This satisfaction must be recorded based on 
the material available before the Special Court – The extent and 
the nature of the material required to record such satisfaction will 
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case – Since  
sub-section 2 of s.44 of the UAPA is an exception to the general 
rule, the condition precedent for the exercise of power of recording 
a clear satisfaction based on material as stated must be complied 
with – After recording the satisfaction, the second stage comes 
into play – It is not that in every case that after such satisfaction is 
recorded, the Court can pass an order prohibiting the prosecution 
from providing a copy of the entire statement of the prosecution 
witnesses till the conclusion of the trial – The Court h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.