When Proceedings Pending Elsewhere, UAPA Sanctioning Authority's Order Cannot Be Challenged In Delhi Just Because MHA Is Here: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the mere fact that the authority granting sanction for prosecution under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) is located in the national capital, will not give the court the jurisdiction to quash the order especially when all the ingredients, events and proceedings relating to the case are taking place in another jurisdiction. A division of Justice...
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the mere fact that the authority granting sanction for prosecution under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) is located in the national capital, will not give the court the jurisdiction to quash the order especially when all the ingredients, events and proceedings relating to the case are taking place in another jurisdiction.
A division of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal made the observation while dismissing the plea moved by former Mumbai police officer Sachin Waze for quashing of the order granting sanction to prosecute him under UAPA in theAntilia bomb scare case.
Rejecting the plea for lack of territorial jurisdiction, the court said:
"Having considered the facts and circumstances of the matter and the obvious forum conveniens for the petitioner, being a resident of Mumbai, seeking relief relating to proceedings underway in Mumbai, the special courts and authorities investigating and adjudicating the matter located in Mumbai, this Court finds no reason to clothe itself with territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the relief sought in this petition"
It noted that the alleged offence, subsequent complaint, probe, FIRs, filing of the chargesheet and all proceedings in the case, including Waze's custody, had taken place in Mumbai.
"In the considered opinion of this Court the mere fact that the authority which awards sanction for prosecution under UAPA is located in Delhi, will not give this Court the jurisdiction to grant relief to quash that order sans the fact that all possible ingredients, events and proceedings in relation to the said matter are taking place in Mumbai," said the court
The court thus agreed with the argument made by Deputy Solicitor General SV Raju that the trial court in Mumbai, which had taken the cognizance of the chargesheet, would be competent to adjudicate upon the challenge to the sanctioning order.
As the plea also sought striking down of Section 15(1) of the UAPA - which defines the 'terrorist act' under the law, the court observed that there was no reason as to why the said prayer should be severed and considered in isolation.
The case pertains to the recovery of 20 gelatine sticks (explosives) and a threat note in a Mahindra Scorpio vehicle near business tycoon Mukesh Ambani's house last year and the subsequent murder of businessman Mansukh Hiran.
Waze was arrested in the case on March 13. The National Investigation Agency (NIA), Waze has also accused Waze of extorting money from bar and orchestra owners. The agency has claimed that the motive behind Waze's alleged crime was to re-establish himself as a "super cop" to regain the lost glory following his reinstatement in the Mumbai Police force in 2020, after 16 years.
The NIA has accused Waze and 9 others under Sections 302(murder), 120B (conspiracy), 201 (destruction of evidence), 364 (kidnapping), 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property) of the IPC and Sections 16 (punishment for a terrorist Act), 18(punishment for conspiracy) & 20 (punishment for being a member of a terrorist gang) of UAPA.
Title: SACHIN HINDURAO WAZE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 940