HC erred, says SC, junks discharge of UAPA accused | India News – Rashtra News : Rashtra News
#erred #junks #discharge #UAPA #accused #India #News #Times #India
NEW DELHI: Noting that a single judge bench of the Kerala HC erred in discharging an accused in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act as the revision petition filed by him seeking discharge had to be decided by a two-judge bench, the Supreme Court has set aside the order and referred it back to HC for reconsideration.
A bench of Justices M R Shah and A S Bopanna allowed the plea of the state government which contended that in view of Section 21(1) of the NIA Act, the revision application against the order passed by the special court refusing to discharge the accused ought to have been heard by a division bench as mandated under sub-section
(2) of Section 21 of the Act. Even the accused agreed with the contentions of the state regarding the proposition of the law that the matter should have been examined by a division bench of the HC.
“In the present case, admittedly, the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the learned single judge which can be said to be absolutely contrary to the statutory provision, namely, Section 21(1) and 21(2) of the NIA Act and the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid decisions. In view of the above, all these appeals succeed and the common impugned judgment and order passed by the HC is hereby quashed ,” the bench said.
“It is made clear that we have not expressed anything on merits in favour of either parties and the common impugned judgment of the high court is set aside solely on the aforesaid ground. It goes without saying that all the contentions/defences which may be available to the respective parties are kept open to be considered by the division bench of the high court in accordance with law and on its own merits,” it said.
A bench of Justices M R Shah and A S Bopanna allowed the plea of the state government which contended that in view of Section 21(1) of the NIA Act, the revision application against the order passed by the special court refusing to discharge the accused ought to have been heard by a division bench as mandated under sub-section
(2) of Section 21 of the Act. Even the accused agreed with the contentions of the state regarding the proposition of the law that the matter should have been examined by a division bench of the HC.
“In the present case, admittedly, the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the learned single judge which can be said to be absolutely contrary to the statutory provision, namely, Section 21(1) and 21(2) of the NIA Act and the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid decisions. In view of the above, all these appeals succeed and the common impugned judgment and order passed by the HC is hereby quashed ,” the bench said.
“It is made clear that we have not expressed anything on merits in favour of either parties and the common impugned judgment of the high court is set aside solely on the aforesaid ground. It goes without saying that all the contentions/defences which may be available to the respective parties are kept open to be considered by the division bench of the high court in accordance with law and on its own merits,” it said.
( News Source :Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Rashtra News staff and is published from a timesofindia.indiatimes.com feed.)
