Summary of the Judgement
Case Name: Fuleshwar Gope vs. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Judgement: 23rd September 2024
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra
Advocates:
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan for the Appellant
Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, and Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Senior Counsel for the Union of India
Acts Involved:
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 (CLA)
Cited Judgements:
Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand (2019)
Bhushan Kumar & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012)
State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta (2019)
Ashraf Khan v. State of Gujarat (2012)
State of Gujarat v. Anwar Osman Sumbhaniya (2019)
Introduction
In the recent judgment of Fuleshwar Gope v. Union of India & Ors., delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 23rd September 2024, the Court delved into important questions concerning the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and its procedural requirements. The case brought to the fore key legal issues, such as the scope of the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) powers to take over investigations, the validity of the sanction for prosecution under the UAPA, and the importance of judicial application of mind while taking cognizance of charges in serious criminal cases.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around Fuleshwar Gope, an alleged associate of the People’s Liberation Front of India (PLFI), a banned organisation under the UAPA. The appellant, Gope, was accused of being involved in criminal conspiracies aimed at supporting the terrorist activities of the PLFI. The appellant allegedly helped channel funds to PLFI through a front company, M/s Shiv Shakti Samridhi Infra Pvt. Ltd., which was used to launder money for illegal activities.
The FIR (Bero P.S. Case No.67/2016) was initially registered in 2016 under various sections of the IPC and UAPA, after demonetized currency worth ₹25.83 lakhs was discovered. Following further investigation, Gope was named as an accused in a supplementary chargesheet filed by the NIA in 2020.
Issues Before the Court
The primary legal questions the court dealt with were:
Jurisdiction of NIA: Whether the Central Government could suo motu transfer an investigation to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) after the local police had concluded their investigation.
Sanction for Prosecution: Whether the sanction issued under Section 45 of the UAPA by the Central Government was valid.
Application of Mind: Whether the special court, in framing charges and taking cognizance of the offences, applied judicial mind properly.
Court’s Observations
Jurisdiction of NIA: The appellant contended that the Central Government lacked the power to transfer the investigation to the NIA after the local police had completed their inquiry. In its analysis, the Supreme Court referred to Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand to hold that the Central Government does have suo motu power to hand over investigations to the NIA, even post-investigation by local authorities. The Court emphasized that the nature of the allegations, which involved terrorism and national security, justified the NIA's intervention.
There is no lack of jurisdiction on the part of NIA to carry out further investigation and submit the supplementary report(s)Â (Pradeep Ram case).
Validity of the Sanction for Prosecution: Gope argued that the sanction was granted mechanically without adherence to the timelines and procedures under the UAPA. He highlighted that the sanction order took two years and six months to be issued, and the review of evidence was completed within a single day, casting doubts on the genuineness of the process.
The Court noted that under Section 45(2) of the UAPA, the Central Government is required to grant sanction only after considering an independent review of the evidence by a designated authority. The Court found that the timelines were adhered to, and the sanction was validly granted.
The authority vide letter dated 16th July 2020 forwarded its report to this Ministry within the time limit as prescribed in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that non-compliance with statutory timelines does not necessarily render the sanction invalid. The timelines are more directory than mandatory, particularly in cases involving national security, where delays may occur due to the complexities involved.
Application of Mind: Another major argument by the appellant was the alleged failure of the special court to apply its mind while taking cognizance of the supplementary chargesheet and framing charges. The Court referred to precedents such as Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), which reiterate the importance of the magistrate applying their mind to the evidence before proceeding with the case.
After reviewing the record, the Court concluded that the special court had sufficiently examined the evidence and material presented by the prosecution, and its approach required no interference.
The approach of the learned Special Judge in dealing with the material placed before them...requires no interference.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's contentions and upheld the findings of the Jharkhand High Court. It held that the sanction for prosecution was valid and that the NIA had the necessary jurisdiction to investigate the case further, even after the initial investigation by the local police.
Legal Implications of the Judgment
NIA’s Suo Motu Powers: This judgment reinforces the Central Government’s broad powers to transfer investigations to the NIA, even after local investigations have been completed. This is particularly relevant in cases involving terrorism or crimes affecting national security, where the Central Government might have concerns over the local police's capabilities or resources.
Sanction for Prosecution under UAPA: The decision provides clarity on the procedural safeguards and statutory timelines under the UAPA for granting sanction for prosecution. While the timelines are important, the Court’s decision indicates that they should not be interpreted in a rigid manner. The substance of the review and application of mind by authorities takes precedence over strict adherence to timelines.
Application of Mind by Courts: The judgment also underscores the importance of judicial officers exercising due diligence while taking cognizance of charges in terrorism-related cases. While the courts must apply their minds independently, they are also bound to trust the investigation and recommendations provided by expert agencies like the NIA.
Comments