Plea Against Professor Saibaba's Discharge- Supreme Court Special Saturday Hearing-Live Updates

Bench : The following important questions of law and facts arise : 1) Whether considering Section 465 CrPC, after the accused is convicted on merits, whether the appellate court is justified in discharging accused on the ground of irregular sanction?

Bench : Even according to accused no.6, the appeals were argued on merits. HC has not entered into the merits of the case and considered anything on the merits of the conviction. Thus it cannot be disputed that while discharging, the HC has not gone into the merits of the case

Bench : ...on the part of the sanctioning /review authority, as no reasons were assigned while granting sanction. Accused 6 was discharged on the ground that at the time of cognizance or framing charge there was no sanction.

Bench dictating order : By the impugned judgment and order, HC has discharged the accused no 1 to 5(except accused 2 who died during pendency) on the ground that the sanction to prosecute those accused was vitiated and was invalid sanction as there was non-application of mind

Bench dictating order : At the outset, it is to be noted that the learned trial court by detailed order convicted the accused under Sec 13/18 UAPA and 120B IPC.

Bench dictating order.

SG : Can the High Court merely say this without recording miscarriage of justice?

SG : It is not correct to say it is a case of absence of sanction. It is a case of delayed sanction. So it is a case of irregularity of sanction.

Justice Shah : His submission is that 465 deals with irregularity of sanction at the time of congizance.

SG points out that the High Court had noted while rejecting bail that his application did not specify medical grounds and in any event, the Prison authorities were giving medical treatment.

SG refers to the HC order refusing him bail after his conviction.