Nation Current Affairs 18 Jan 2018 Lt Col Purohit petit ...

Lt Col Purohit petitions SC to cancel 2008 Malegaon blast case against him

DECCAN CHRONICLE. | J VENKATESAN
Published Jan 18, 2018, 7:52 pm IST
Updated Jan 18, 2018, 9:10 pm IST
Purohit sought quashing of cognisance against Petitioner under provisions of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
Lieutenant Colonel Shrikant Prasad Purohit on Thursday moved the Supreme Court challenging an order of the Bombay High Court refusing to quash the cognisance taken by the trial court in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case. (Photo: File | ANI)
 Lieutenant Colonel Shrikant Prasad Purohit on Thursday moved the Supreme Court challenging an order of the Bombay High Court refusing to quash the cognisance taken by the trial court in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case. (Photo: File | ANI)

New Delhi: Lieutenant Colonel Shrikant Prasad Purohit on Thursday moved the Supreme Court challenging an order of the Bombay High Court refusing to quash the cognisance taken by the trial court in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case.

In his appeal against the High Court order, Colonel Purohit said he had sought quashing of cognisance taken by the Special Court, National Investigation Agency (NIA) at Greater Bombay, of the offences initiated against the Petitioner under the provisions of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act for want of valid sanction, mandated by S 45 (1) and (2) of the Act.

 

The High Court, while dismissing the Petition, observed that the issue of sanction could be decided at the stage of trial. He said it is settled law that when a safeguard or a right is provided favouring the accused, compliance thereto has to be strictly construed and that absence of sanction prior to cognisance is not a mere technical defect. Hence, continuance of prosecution in the absence of a valid sanction shall be deemed to be ‘non est’ in the eyes of law.

He said no purpose would be served by putting the accused through great stress and trauma of facing a trial without a sanction by the Competent Authority, in addition to the same being an abuse of process of law. He pointed out that when the earlier sanction was issued, it was clear that there was no reviewing authority in existence neither on the date of sanction nor on the date of cognisance. Thus, the sanction is not valid for want of compliance of mandatory provisions of S 45(2) r/w the rules of sanction for prosecution made there under.

 

Thus, in these circumstances, the Petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 18.12.2017, dismissing his petition as well as the judgment and order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the Special Court (NIA), limited to the extent that it has refused to consider existence of a valid sanction or otherwise, prior to taking of cognisance of the offence.

...
Location: India, Delhi, New Delhi




ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
-->