Kerala Govt Approaches Supreme Court Seeking To Restore UAPA Charges Against Alleged Maoist

Update: 2022-07-26 15:26 GMT

The State of Kerala has approached Supreme Court against Kerala High Court's order of discharging alleged Maoist leader Roopesh accused of charges under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sedition under Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code.The High Court bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran had discharged Roopesh, who allegedly along with members of...

Your free access to Live Law has expired

Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

Subscribe Now

The High Court bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran had discharged Roopesh, who allegedly along with members of the banned Maoist organization distributed pamphlets containing "seditious writings" in tribal colonies in Wayanad district, on the ground of irregularities in the order granting sanction for prosecution.

The High Court in the order dated March 17, 2022 had also held that the sanction under the UAPA granted after six months from the date of receipt of recommendation of the authority is not a valid sanction.

The State in the petition before the Top Court has argued that stipulation of time under rule 3 & 4 of UAPA (Recommendation of Sanction Rules) 2008 is only directory in nature.

It was further stated in the plea that the cognisance was taken by the Magistrate upon police report and therefore section 460(e), CrPC was squarely applicable & irregularity in proceedings would not vitiate the entire proceedings.

"Rule of strict construction cannot be applied in an impracticable manner so as to render the statute itself nugatory. In other words, the rule of strict construction of a penal statute or a special penal statute is not intended to put all the provisions in such a tight iron cast that they become practically unworkable, and thereby, the entire purpose of the UA(P)A is defeated," the plea stated.

Regarding the offence of sedition, the High Courtheld that the power of the designated court to try the accused for any offence other than the offences under the special statute can be exercised only in a trial conducted for any offence under the special statute. Therefore, when the cognizance taken of the offences under the UAPA is held to be without jurisdiction for want of valid sanction, there is no question of a valid trial being held by the Special Court into any offence under the IPC.

On these grounds, the cognizance taken by the Sessions Court under the IPC and UAPA were set aside and the Criminal Revision Petitions were allowed accordingly by the High Court.

While assailing the High Court's order, the State of Kerala has also averred that the accused is involved in serious crime and if they are allowed to evade prosecution on grounds of technicality, there would be no assurance of them not repeating the crime.

"Cognizance has been taken against the offences not against the offender and the sanction accorded against the offender and not against the offences. Any irregularity or error in passing the sanction order will not affect the offences and the entire criminal proceedings," plea stated.

The petition has been preferred by AOR Harshad V Hameed.

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Rupesh

Kerala Govt Approaches Supreme Court Seeking To Restore UAPA Charges Against Alleged Maoist

Similar News