ROOPESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under Challenge in these petitions is the common order passed by the Court of Session, Kozhikkode, as per which, the petitions filed by the revision petitioner under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") were dismissed.

(2.) In his petition seeking discharge, the petitioner had raised manifold contentions before the learned Sessions Judge. He contended that the cognizance taken by the Court of Session for the offence under Section 124A of the IPC was unsustainable as his prosecution sans the requisite sanction under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C was bad in law. He also raised a contention that the sanction obtained by the prosecution for prosecuting him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ('UAP Act' for the sake of brevity) could not be regarded as valid in view of the blatant violation of the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation And Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 ("Recommendation Rules, 2008" for the sake of brevity). Both these contentions did not find favour with the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, these revision petitions.

(3.) To appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner, it is necessary to have a brief understanding of the facts involved.