The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Fuleshwar Gope against the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand, which had upheld the validity of the sanction granted for his prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The Court found no merit in the appellant's contentions regarding procedural infirmities in the sanction order and the cognizance taken under UAPA. The Court allowed the trial to continue, emphasizing that the appellant's involvement in the activities of the People's Liberation Front of India (PLFI) warranted prosecution.

1. Background Facts (Paras 3-4)

• Fuleshwar Gope was implicated as part of a larger conspiracy involving the PLFI, a terrorist organization, led by Dinesh Gope (A-6). He was involved in the formation of a company, M/s. Shiv Shakti Samridhi Infra Pvt. Ltd., which was used to collect funds for PLFI activities.
• The case originated from FIR No. 67 of 2016, alleging illegal possession of Rs. 25.83 lakhs in demonetized currency linked to the organization’s extortion activities.

2. Legal Proceedings (Paras 5-6)

• The appellant sought to quash multiple orders, including the suo-motu transfer of investigation to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the sanction letter dated 22nd July 2020, and the cognizance order under UAPA and IPC.
• The High Court of Jharkhand upheld the orders, and the appellant approached the Supreme Court challenging these findings.

3. Issues Before the Court (Paras 11-14)

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:

• Whether the validity of the sanction order can be challenged at any stage?
• Whether non-compliance with Section 45(2) of UAPA, particularly regarding timelines, vitiates the proceedings?
• Whether the appellant's involvement was independent of other accused?
• Whether the statutory exemption under Section 22A UAPA applies to the appellant?

4. Court’s Findings (Paras 15-30)

Sanction Validity (Issue 1)

• The Court held that while the validity of sanction can be challenged, it must be raised promptly. The trial had progressed, with many witnesses already examined, so the challenge to sanction was deemed delayed.

Compliance with Section 45(2) UAPA and Timelines (Issue 2)

• The Court rejected the appellant’s argument regarding non-adherence to the 7-day timeline under Rules 3 & 4 of the UAPA Sanction Rules, 2008. It held that the timelines are directory, not mandatory, and the sanction process was carried out diligently.

Involvement in the Conspiracy (Issue 3)

• The appellant was found to be involved in the continuing conspiracy related to the PLFI’s extortion racket. His association with Dinesh Gope and the financial operations under M/s. Shiv Shakti Samridhi Infra Pvt. Ltd. confirmed his participation in illegal activities.

Exemption under Section 22A (Issue 4)

• The Court dismissed the appellant’s claim of being merely a "Munshi" (clerk) and his argument of identity theft by other accused. The Court held that he had an active role in the conspiracy.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA): Sections 17, 18, 21, 22
• Indian Penal Code (IPC): Section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy)
• Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908: Sections 17(i) & (ii)
• National Investigation Agency Act, 2008: Sections 6(2) & (3)
• UAPA Sanction Rules, 2008: Rules 3 & 4 (Timeline for Sanction)

Ratio Decidendi:

The Court ruled that statutory timelines under UAPA sanction rules are not mandatory but directory. The sanction granted for prosecuting Fuleshwar Gope under UAPA was valid as there was no procedural violation that would vitiate the proceedings. The trial court had correctly taken cognizance of the charges under UAPA, and the appellant’s role in financing and supporting the PLFI’s activities warranted prosecution under anti-terror laws.

Subjects:

Criminal Appeal under UAPA, Procedural Validity of Sanction and Cognizance, Role in Terrorist Financing

#SupremeCourt #UAPA #Terrorism #Sanction #Extortion #CriminalLaw #NationalSecurity #NIA