ROOPESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amidst the raging controversy as to the retention of offence of sedition in the I PC; which the naysayers categorise as a relic of the colonial past; a symbol of British hegemony and the votaries support in the wake of rising anti-national feelings under the cloak of liberal thought, the Government sat over a sanction for six months, violating the time frame prescribed in the rules.

(2.) Shorn of the myriad facts regarding the ingredients of the offences alleged, the revision petitioner was charged under Ss. 143, 147, 148,124A read with 149IPC and Ss. 20 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [for short 'UA(P)A']. The revision petitioner is alleged to be a member of the Communist Party of India [Maoist] a proscribed organisation under the UA(P)A. The three crimes registered are Crime No.861 of 2013 of the Kuttiadi Police Station and Crime Nos.11 and 15 of 2014 of the Valayam Police Station. The State Police Chief wrote to the State Home Department, who took it up with the Authority constituted under S.45 of the UA(P)A. The statement dtd. 19/7/2018 filed by the 3rd respondent, Addl. Chief Secretary, Home and Vigilance, indicates the same having been taken up with the Law Secretary, who was the Chairperson of the Authority and the latter having agreed to convene a meeting of the Authority on 11/1/2018. This establishes the evidence gathered in the investigation having been placed before the Authority before 11/1/2018. Then it is stated that there was a change in the constitution of the Authority and a retired High Court Judge was appointed. The Chairman newly appointed was engaged with the Puttingal Enquiry Commission and related cases and hence could not consider the proposal immediately. Eventually the Authority took up the matter on 7/2/2018 and recommended it on the same day. The sanction of the State Government in the first two crimes were on 11/6/2018 and in the other crime on 7/4/2018; both delayed.

(3.) The allegation now raised is of delay in recommendation and sanction, thus violating the time stipulated under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 (Rules of 2008); prescribed as empowered under the UA(P)A. The sanctions, not being within time, are not valid and vitiates the cognizance taken by the Special Court. The Special Court, before which an application was moved under S.227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for discharge, rejected the applications, wrongly assuming that the time stipulated under the Rules commence from the letter of the Director General of Police dtd. 3/6/2018. The Government does not press that contention before us.