Introduction:
In the recent case of Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court has decisively ruled that an investigating agency under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) cannot seek an extension of time in filing the chargesheet solely on the grounds of pending sanction from the competent authority. The Division Bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Gauri Godse clarified the legal requirements surrounding the filing of a chargesheet and the role of sanction under the UAPA.
Background:
The appeal was brought forth by Momin Moiuddin Gulam Hasan and Asif Aminul Hussain Khan Adhikari, who were arrested by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) on September 22, 2022, for alleged membership in the Popular Front of India (PFI). The ATS had sought extensions to file the chargesheet, initially for retrieving data and later for obtaining the prosecution sanction.
Despite granting two extensions (30 days and 15 days respectively) by the special court, the accused sought default bail, which was denied. This led to the petition before the High Court.
Key Judgement Points:
- No Requirement of Sanction for Filing Chargesheet: The court held that there is no legal requirement for a sanction from the competent authority to file a chargesheet under UAPA. The sanction is necessary for the court to take cognizance of the case, not for the filing of the chargesheet itself. This distinction is crucial as it impacts the timelines and procedures followed during the investigation and prosecution under UAPA.
- Sanction and Cognizance: The court elaborated on the provisions of Section 45 of UAPA and Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), highlighting that the embargo is on taking cognizance without sanction, not on the filing of the chargesheet. Thus, the appropriate authority needs the chargesheet to apply its mind and grant the necessary sanction for cognizance.
- Extension of Time for Investigation: Under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., the statutory period for completing an investigation is 60 or 90 days, depending on the case. Special statutes like UAPA allow for an extension due to the complexity of investigations. Under Section 43-D of UAPA, the investigation period can be extended to a maximum of 180 days if the court is satisfied with the progress and reasons presented by the Public Prosecutor.
- Inapplicability of Extension for Obtaining Sanction: The bench underscored that extensions of time to file a chargesheet can only be requested to complete the investigation. If the investigation is complete and the extension is sought merely for obtaining a sanction, such an extension is not permissible. The case at hand demonstrated this scenario, where the Public Prosecutor’s report indicated that the investigation was complete, and the extension was requested only due to the pending sanction.
Conclusion:
The Bombay High Court, in its ruling, emphasised that once the investigation is complete, the mandate of Section 43-D of UAPA cannot be invoked for seeking an extension on the grounds of pending sanction. Sanction is a pre-requisite for cognizance, not for the filing of a chargesheet, thus eliminating the basis for extension under these circumstances.
This judgment reinforces the legal principles governing the procedural requirements under UAPA and clarifies the scope and limitations of seeking extensions in the context of filing chargesheets. It also underscores the importance of distinguishing between procedural prerequisites for cognizance and those for filing chargesheets, thereby ensuring adherence to statutory mandates and protecting the rights of the accused.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content may not reflect the most current legal developments and is not guaranteed to be accurate, complete, or up-to-date. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional before taking any action based on the information provided. The authors and publishers disclaim any liability for any loss or damage incurred as a result of reliance on this article. This article does not create an attorney-client relationship.