Appeal Against GN Saibaba's Discharge : 10 Arguments Raised By Maharashtra Govt In Appeal Before Supreme Court

A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Bela M Trivedi will hear the Maharashtra Government's appeal Saturday (tomorrow) at 11 AM in a special sitting.

The High Court set aside the conviction on the ground that the trial was held without a valid sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA. The sanction as regards five accused (other than Saibaba) was granted without proper application of mind. As regards Saibaba, sanction was accorded for his prosecution only after the trial commenced. Citing these grounds, the High Court declared the trial as null and void.

The petition filed before the Supreme Court submitted that, "The High Court by the impugned judgment has reversed a well-reasoned and detailed judgment of conviction of the accused which was after considering at length the provisions under the UAPA Act, the material collected against the accused and the other facts and circumstances of the matter."

The State of Maharashtra has challenged the order of the High Court and sought Special leave to appeal against the order on the following grounds:

1. The State of Maharashtra has claimed that the High Court failed in appreciating the fact that even after the receipt of sanction Accused No. 6 i.e., G. N. Saibaba, an application for the recall of Petitioner Witness No. 1 was filed by the prosecution. It was stated by the State Government that the trial court had allowed the application as a no- objection was given by the accused.

2. It was also claimed by the State that the issue regarding the point of sanctions was neither raised nor argued before the Trial Court and yet the trial court had rightly concluded the point against the accused and held that there was no substantial failure of justice.

3. The State has also alleged that the High Court erred to take note of the fact that the accused had never raised the issue of sanctions before the Trial Court, even though the accused were fully aware of the offences for which they were being prosecuted and had full opportunity to defend themselves

4. Another ground raised by the State of Maharashtra to filed the Special Leave Petition is that the judgment of the High Court of Bombay goes against the judgments of the Supreme Court in Pradeep S. Wodeyar vs State of Karnataka, Lal Singh vs State of Gujarat and State of M. P. vs Bhooraji and Ors.

5. It has also been stated that the High Court erred in not appreciating the fact that the entire trial had taken place with the participation of the accused and no prejudice was resulting the accused.

6. The State of Maharashtra had also stated that the High Court was contrary to and had ignored the statutory scheme under Section 460 (Irregularities which do not vitiate proceedings), 461 (Irregularities which vitiate proceedings) and 465 (Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission and irregularity) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is argued that as per Sections 461/465, irregularity in sanction will not vitiate trial.

7. The State Government had also pointed that the High Court had wrongly relied upon judgments relating to the Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act where the statutory scheme is different from that of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. It was also added that the High Court had also wrongly appreciated that case was one where sanction were required.

8. The State of Maharashtra also submitted that the High Court erred in not appreciating that the judgments relied upon the accused considering the separate facts and more specifically Section 20(A)(1) of the TADA Act have no applicability to the case at hand.

9. It was also pointed out that the High Court has erred in not appreciating that the provisions of Section 45(2) while considering the mode and manner in which a report has to be issued by designated authority

10. Lastly, it was stated that the interpretation done by the High Court of Section 45(1) and 45(2) of the UAPA Act is incorrect and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as well as in the face of the judgments of the Supreme Court.