ASHISH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On getting secret information, that some materials to be used by the extremists for strengthening communication system have reached to Air India Office, Ranchi from Delhi, the Officer Incharge, Chutia Police Station-respondent No. 2 along with police party reached to the office of Air India, Ranchi and found this petitioner and one other person present over there, who had taken delivery of those materials. On being quizzed, they disclosed that they had received it at the instance of one Naresh Sharma, Proprietor of M/s. Shekhar Construction Pvt. Ltd., Daltonganj and they would take it to his house at Ashok Nagar Ranchi. They also told to the police officials that said Naresh Sharma is presently residing at Daltonganj, Thereafter, the materials such as Walkie Talkie, 60 in numbers. Transistors Micro Cassettes Recorders, Contact Antenna etc. were seized. After seizure of those materials, Officer In-charge of Chutia P.S. on the direction of the superior police officials came to Daltonganj and took Naresh Sharma in custody who on interrogation confessed that those materials had been brought for giving it to Sandeep Jee and Prashant Jee who are members of Central Committee of an extremist group, and those two persons, who had received those articles at Ranchi, were well aware of this fact. On the disclosure made by said Naresh Sharma, one bullet proof jacket, brought from Delhi for giving it to them, was also seized from the house of Naresh Sharma. On getting these informations, this petitioner and other person including Naresh Sharma were arrested and a case was registered as Chutia P.S. Case No. 136 of 2009 under Section 13(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and also under Section 17 of the C.I,.A. Act against them.

(2.) On completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet on the basis of which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi by its order dated 17.9.2009 took cognizance of the offences under Section 13(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. 1967 as well as under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act against the petitioner and other accused persons.

(3.) Being aggrieved with the said order, this writ application has been filed, wherein the order taking cognizance has been challenged to be bad, as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ranchi took cognizance of the offences under Section 13(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 as well as under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act without there being any sanction by the competent authority, whereas sanction from the competent authority is a condition precedent for taking cognizance of offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.