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

SG : So far as accused 6(Saibaba) is concerned, sanction came late. By that time, PW1 Investigating Officer was examined. Application was filed to recall PW1. At that time, he did not object. That was the first opportunity to raise the ground of sanction. He waived.

"Sub-section (2) makes it clear that when the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceeding and has not been raised, mere error or irregularity in any sanction of prosecution becomes ignorable" - SG quotes from Lal Singh judgment.

Justice Shah : Are you having the statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC?

SG : We are finding out that page, meanwhile please see this judgment (Lal Singh vs State of Guj).

SG : There is one judgment Lal Singh vs State of Gujarat 1998(5) SCC 529, which states that this ground cannot be raised in appeal if it is not raised in trial.

"Trial is not vitiated on account of sanction being granted (as regards GN Saibaba) after cognizance....", SG reads out trial court order.

SG reading relevant portions of the Trial Court order.

SG : So far as accused no.6 (Saibaba) is concerned, he does not raise the contention that sanction was granted after cognizance. During trial he does not raise. But trial court considers it though not raised by him and holds it has not occassioned any failure of justice.

SG : So far as accused 1 to 5, sanction was granted. They take the argument that it was not properly considered.

Justice Shah : High Court was of opinion CFSL report was not considered, same day sanction was granted and materials were not considered by sanctioning authority.

SG : Section 43C of UAPA makes CrPC applicable.

SG : At appellate court it cannot be done unless it is held that a failure of justice has been occassioned.