Absence Of Sanction For Particular Accused U/S 45 UAPA Does Not Bar Framing Of Charges: Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To PFI Member

The Court clarified that once cognisance has been taken for the offences alleged, the absence of sanction specifically in respect of a particular accused does not, by itself, preclude the framing of charges or continuation of proceedings.

A Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T considered these issues while dealing with a challenge arising from the rejection of bail and objections relating to the sanction under the UAPA, and held: “A plain reading of Section 45 of UAP Act makes it clear that the bar against taking cognizance applies to offences covered under Chapter IV and VI of UAP Act, unless prior sanction is obtained from the appropriate Government. The term 'cognisance' refers that it has to be taken in respect of offences and not against an individual. Thus, Section 45 of the UAP Act mandates that sanction is pre-condition for the Court to take cognisance of an offence and not necessarily tied to a particular accused”.

Thus, the Bench held that “the absence of sanction in respect to a particular accused specifically does not by itself preclude the framing of charges or continuation of the proceedings, if cognisance has been taken for the offences alleged”.

Background

The proceedings arose out of a criminal case registered for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the UAPA, including offences falling under Chapters IV and VI of the statute.

During the course of the proceedings, the jurisdictional court took cognisance of the offences alleged under the UAPA following the grant of sanction by the appropriate Government.

In the appeal before the High Court, the accused raised multiple grounds, including a challenge to the maintainability of proceedings based on sanction. It was contended that although cognisance had been taken for UAPA offences, sanction had not been specifically granted in respect of the appellant/accused, and therefore, proceedings could not continue as against that accused.

Court’s Observation

The High Court undertook a statutory interpretation of Section 45 of the UAPA and examined its placement within the scheme of the Act, particularly with reference to offences under Chapters IV and VI.

The Court held that a plain reading of Section 45 makes it clear that the bar against taking cognisance applies to offences covered under Chapters IV and VI, unless prior sanction is obtained from the appropriate Government.

The Bench analysed the meaning of the term “cognisance” and held that cognisance is taken in respect of an offence and not in respect of an individual accused. On this construction, the Court held that the statutory requirement of a sanction is attached to the offence itself.

The High Court therefore held that Section 45 mandates sanction as a precondition for the Court to take cognisance of an offence, and that the provision is not necessarily tied to sanction being granted separately or specifically in respect of each accused person.

On this basis, the Court held that once cognisance has been taken of the offences alleged under the UAPA, the absence of a sanction specifically naming or referring to a particular accused does not, by itself, invalidate the proceedings, bar framing of charges, or preclude continuation of the prosecution.

The Court further observed that accepting the contention that a sanction must be accused-specific would amount to reading into Section 45 a requirement that is not borne out by the statutory language.

The Bench thus rejected the interpretation advanced that proceedings could not continue in the absence of sanction, specifically in respect of the appellant/accused, so long as cognisance had validly been taken for the offences under the UAPA.

In the course of its reasoning, the Court also considered the stage of proceedings and the limited scope of interference while examining challenges raised in the context of bail and preliminary objections, and held that the issue of sanction, as raised, did not warrant interference with the continuation of proceedings.

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court held that the sanction requirement under Section 45 of the UAPA operates in relation to offences and not in relation to individual accused persons.

On this basis, the Court dismissed the appeal alongwith all pending interlocutory applications.

Cause Title: Shahid Khan v. State of Karnataka

Appearances

Appellant: Mohammed Tahir, Advocate

Respondent: P. Prasanna Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor

Click here to read/download Judgment