NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court had stayed the Bombay High Court's order discharging ex Delhi University's English teacher G N Saibaba and others in Maoists link case on ground of sanctions.
It has decided to examine a number of legal issues including if the appellate court is justified in passing the order despite the fact that the trial court convicted the accused on the basis of evidences on record.
After an urgent hearing, a bench of Justices M R Shah and Bela M Trivedi formulated following questions for adjudication in future hearings on appeal filed by the Maharashtra government against the Bombay High Court's order of October 14.
The questions framed are:
(1) Whether considering Section 465 CrPC, whether after the conclusion of the trial and the accused is convicted on merits and on appreciation of evidences and whether the appellate Court is justified in discharging the accused on the ground of irregular sanction, if any?
(2) In a case where the trial Court has convicted the accused on merit on appreciation of the evidences on record and thereafter having found the accused guilty for the offences for which they are tried, whether the appellate court is justified in discharging the accused on the ground of want of sanction and/or irregular sanction, more particularly, when the objection with respect to no sanction was not specifically raised by an appropriate application during the trial and trial was permitted to be proceeded further and thereafter the trial Court has convicted the accused on appreciation of evidences on record?
(3) What will be consequences of not raising the dispute with respect to sanction during the trial and thereafter permitting the trial Court to proceed further, and despite the opportunities given to the accused even at the stage of recording the further statement under Section 313 CrPC when no objection to the want of sanction at the time of taking cognizance was taken?
In its appeal, the Maharashtra government has contended the High Court decided the entire matter on the point of sanction alone without referring to the evidences on record.
"Neither during the course of the trial nor thereafter during the final arguments the issue of sanction was raised before the trial court," it said.
In its judgement, the High Court had held the proceedings in Sessions Trials are null and void in the absence of valid sanction under Section 45(1) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
