Holding that his trial at the session court was “null and void” in the absence of valid sanction under Section 45(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Friday acquitted Delhi University’s former Professor GN Saibaba and three others in an alleged Maoist links case.
Allowing an appeal challenging a 2017 decision of the trial court convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment, a HC bench of Justices Rohit Deo and Anil Pansare held the proceedings against Prof Saibaba in the trial court as “null and void”.
While acquitting Prof Saibaba and three others, the HC bench noted, “In view of the findings recorded by us, we hold that the proceedings in Sessions Trials 30/2014 and 130/2015 are null and void in the absence of valid sanction under Section 45(1) of the UAPA, and the common judgment impugned is liable to be set aside, which we do order.”
The three others who were acquitted are: Mahesh K Tirki, Hem Keshawdatt Mishra, Prashant Rahi and Vijay Nan Tirki. In the case of another accused Pandur Pora Narote, who died during the pendency of his appeal, the HC held that the appeal preferred by did not abate.
Saibaba, who is currently lodged in Nagpur Central Jail, suffers from a polio-related paralysis and is bound to a wheelchair. He had previously filed a plea seeking suspension of his sentence on medical grounds, saying he is also suffering from multiple ailments, but it was rejected.
The Nagpur bench has ordered that Saibaba and other accused shall execute a bond of `50,000 each along with surety of the like amount and that they be released forthwith “unless the are required in any other case”.
The Maharashtra Government moved the Supreme Court challenging the HC order, but the SC refused to stay the acquittal. However, the SC website said the matter was listed for hearing on Saturday.
The apex court ordered that the case be listed before an appropriate bench after the Chief Justice of India provided his administrative approval.
The bench said the State Government could move an application seeking an earlier hearing on Saturday.
Earlier in the day, the HC bench of Justices Deo and Pansare observed, “We are inclined to hold that every safeguard, however miniscule, legislatively provided to the accused, must be zealously protected. In interpreting the provisions of Section 45 of the UAPA, we deem it safer to be guided by the authoritative enunciation of the Supreme Court while considering para materia provisions of the TADA.”
“The Prosecution did submit that if the appeal is decided, not on merits, but only on the point of sanction, we may grant liberty to the prosecution to obtain proper sanction and try the accused. In view of the well entrenched position of law, that the rule against double jeopardy has no application if the trial is held vitiated due to invalidity or absence of sanction, we see no reason to dilate any further on the said submission,” the HC bench noted.
“While the war against terror must be waged by the State with unwavering resolve, and every legitimate weapon in the armoury must be deployed in the fight against terror, a civil democratic society can ill afford sacrificing the procedural safeguards legislatively provided, and which is an integral facet of the due process of law, at the altar of perceived peril to national security,” the HC bench averred.
Alluding to the death of accused Narote, who died during the pendency of his appeal, the Judges observed, “We are of the considered view, that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesan (dead) through LR. Girija 71 , which is rendered on the anvil of the provisions of Section 394 of the Code of 1973, appeal preferred by accused 2-Pandu Pora Narote does not abate”.
It may be recalled that a Sessions Court in Gadchiroli had, in March 2017, convicted Saibaba and the others for alleged Maoist links and for indulging in activities amounting to waging war against the country.
The Sessions Court had held that Saibaba, along with two other accused, possessed naxal literature with the intent and purpose of circulation amongst underground naxalites in Gadchiroli and residents of the district with the aim to incite the people to resort to violence. The court had negated the submission that the absence of sanction to prosecute Saibaba was fatal to the case of the prosecution.
The Sessions Judge had observed that no leniency could be shown to Saibaba in view of his 90 per cent disability since he was mentally fit and was part of a think tank of the banned organisation which had brought the industrial and other development in the naxal affected areas to a grinding halt.
During the arguments before the High Court, Saibaba’s counsel had contended that the absence of sanction at the time of framing charge and recording evidence rendered the proceedings null and void.