the way Supreme Court suspended operation of Bombay High Court’s decision to acquit GN Saibaba and others The case of an alleged Maoist conspiracy is quite unusual and raises serious questions. It is true that his conviction by a lower court – Prof. Under the provisions of imprisonment for life to Saibaba and four others and 10 years to others. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) – was set aside by the High Court not on merit, but only on technical grounds, and the State may feel aggrieved. However, the apex court could have been more restrained while considering the appeal against the order. The court showed extraordinary enthusiasm in fulfilling the wish of the Government of Maharashtra for an urgent hearing. a Special Bench of Justice MR Shah and Bela Trivedi formed For hearing on the appeal on Saturday. Consider the circumstances: The accused have spent years in jail, Prof. Saibaba is incapacitated, and soon after his discharge, he is required to file a bond under a process that also requires those acquitted to be available for further proceedings. Appeal. It is doubtful whether the court should have reacted so swiftly to just suspend a judgment giving detailed reasons for discharging the accused. After all, appeals against acquittals are not uncommon.
The gist of the High Court judgment is that in the case of five accused (one of them died in jail), the sanction to prosecute them under UAPA was invalid as the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and on the same day Acceptance was obtained, and that there was no summary of an analysis of the evidence conducted by an independent reviewer to help grant acceptance. Pro. In Saibaba’s case, cognizance was taken and a witness was also examined before the sanction order was passed, rendering the entire proceedings void. The Government may have a debatable case under section 465 of the CrPC that no error, omission or irregularity in the matter of sanction shall affect the trial, unless it results in the failure of justice, and that a treatable defects. However, these issues have been dealt with in detail by the High Court. The Bench has concluded that while dealing with special laws like UAPA, every protection provided by the legislature, however small, should be zealously protected. A 1976 judgment gives the Supreme Court the power to suspend an acquittal order, but in principle, the benefit of an acquittal or acquittal should not be withheld by an appellate court without a full hearing.