Source: Indian Express

Introduction

The recent verdict by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court acquitting former Delhi University professor G N Saibaba in the case of Mahesh Kariman Tirki and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2024). It underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural requirements in anti-terror trials. The decision marks the second instance where an appellate court has highlighted prosecutorial lapses in the case.

What were the Facts of the Saibaba Case?

• About:
  • Saibaba and five others were arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA) on terror charges.
• Initiation:
  • The joint judgment and conviction orders in 2017 were contested by the convicted accused through two separate appeals.
  • Initially, Crime No. 3017/2013 was registered in 2013 at Police Station Aheri, District Gadchiroli against Mahesh Tirki (accused No.1), Pandu Narote (accused No.2), and Hem Mishra (accused No.3).
  • Subsequently, the involvement of Prashant Sanglikar (accused No.4), Vijay Tirki (accused No.5), and G N Saibaba (accused No.6) was discovered during the investigation.
• Filing of Chargesheet and Framing of Charges:
  • The investigation led to the filing of a charge sheet followed by a supplementary charge sheet.
  • After complying with Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Trial Court framed charges against all six accused under various sections of the UAPA and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Witnesses:
  • Upon pleading not guilty, the prosecution presented 25 witnesses and relied on documentary evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
    • The accused denied all charges and claimed false implications and did not present any witnesses in their defense.
• Trial Court’s Conviction:
  • Based on the assessment of evidence, the Trial Court found all accused guilty and convicted them of various offences, imposing both punishment and fines.
  • The trial court convicted them in 2017, alleging links with banned terrorist organization CPI (Maoist) and its frontal organization (RDF), despite procedural irregularities.
• Prior High Court’s Decision:
  • The High Court nullified the proceedings of Sessions Case due to the absence of valid sanction under Section 45(1) of the UAPA.
  • It set aside the order of conviction, stating that the appeals of the accused, even after the demise of one, do not abate.
  • The court rejected the prosecution's plea for obtaining proper sanction during the appeal.
• Appeal to Supreme Court:
  • Accused individuals were released from custody, with bail conditions set.
  • However, the State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court's judgment wasn't based on merit.
  • Consequently, the Supreme Court remitted the case to the High Court for fresh decision on merits and the validity of the sanction.

What was the Court's Conclusion in Saibaba Case?

• After examining the evidence, the Bombay High Court determines the conviction as legally unsustainable, allowing objections to the sanction's validity in this appeal.
• The Court found total non-compliance with various UAPA provisions, rendering the sanction to prosecute Accused Nos.1 to 5 invalid.
• The Trial Court's cognizance without valid sanction regarding Accused No.6 renders proceedings null and void.
• Bombay High Court said that violations of UAPA provisions on arrest, search, and seizure undermine statutory presumptions and constitute a failure of justice.
• Consequently, the Trial Court's judgment was adjudged unsustainable, leading to the appeals' allowance.
• The accused were acquitted of specified charges, with necessary bail arrangements made.

What was the Reasoning of Court in Saibaba Case?

• Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) does not cure the absence of sanction, rendering the trial void.
• The UAPA's genesis lies in safeguarding national sovereignty, not sacrificing procedural integrity.
• Procedural safeguards, including sanction, are not ritualistic but integral to due process.

What were the Major Legal Provisions Involved in Saibaba Case?

• Section 45 of the UAPA:
  • Mandates prior sanction for terrorism-related charges from Central Government, State Government or Government of foreign country as the case may be.
• Sections 43-A and 43-B of the UAPA:
  • It pertains to arrest, search, and seizure.
  • Section 43A of UAPA states that, any empowered officer of the Designated Authority, by order of the Central or State Government, aware of or suspecting an offence under this Act, may authorize arrest or search, day or night.
  • Section 43B of UAPA states that an arresting officer under section 43A must promptly inform the arrested individual of the grounds for arrest.
    • Every person arrested and article seized under section 43A shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station.
    • The receiving authority must take necessary actions as per the law without delay.
• Section 43-E of the UAPA:
  • In a prosecution under section 15, if arms, explosives, or similar substances are found with the accused, or if evidence like fingerprints links the accused to the crime scene or related items, the Court shall presume the accused committed the offence, unless proven otherwise.

Conclusion

The ruling emphasizes that the fight against terror must uphold procedural fairness and legal standards. The judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting individual rights while combating terrorism. The case sets a precedent, reaffirming the sanctity of due process in anti-terror prosecutions. Adherence to legal provisions ensures justice prevails, even in the most challenging circumstances.