Binod Kumar Ganjhu @ Vinod Kumar ... vs The Union Of India And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3334 Jhar

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          W.P(Cr.) No. 308 of 2022

1. Binod Kumar Ganjhu @ Vinod Kumar Ganjhu @ Binod Ganjhu
2. Bindeshwar Ganju @ Bindu Ganjhu                 ..... Petitioners
                           Versus
The Union of India and Another                  .... ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

For the Petitioners       : Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate
                            Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
                            Ms. Aakriti Priya, Advocate
For NIA                   : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Spl.PP
For Union of India        : Mr. Anil Kumar, Addl. S.G.I.
                            Mr. Vinod Kumar Sahu, Sr. Panel Counsel
                                 ---------

rd Order No. 04 /Dated: 23 August 2022

The learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the sanction order dated 19th December 2018 by the Central Government vide Annexure-18, primarily on the ground that it is not revealed whether any record was transmitted to the Central Government on the basis of which the order dated 19th December 2018 has been passed. It is submitted that, prima facie, it appears that there was no independent application of mind by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India while granting sanction for prosecution vide order dated 19th December 2018.

2. The order dated 13th February 2018 has been challenged on the ground that the said order has been issued on an assumption that the offences under sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the UAP Act, 1967 were added by the State police during the course of investigation.

3. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the records of the case it would appear that offences under the UAP Act, 1967 are not added in the original files, though three different and contradictory statements as regards addition of the offences under the UAP Act, 1967 are available in the records.

4. In the aforesaid state of affairs, Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioners invites this Court to call for the records and examine by itself to satisfy its judicial conscience whether the sanction

for prosecution vide order dated 19th December, 2018 has been issued after an independent assessment of the materials collected during the investigation by the State police.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment in "Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand & Anr." (2019)17 SCC 326, the order dated 17.03.2022 passed by High Court of Kerala in Crl. Rev. Pet. No.732 of 2019 title "Roopesh v. State of Kerala", order dated 12.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Crl.) No.6981- 6983 of 2022 title "The State of Kerala & Ors. v. Roopesh" and the order dated 17.11.2021 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in W.P(C) No.1167 of 2021 title "Amitabha Pande & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.".

6. However, there are objections with respect to non-disclosure of complete facts. On behalf of the petitioners supplementary affidavit dated 13th July 2022 has been filed stating that W.P(Cr.) No.399 of 2018 which was filed by the petitioner no.2 stood dismissed as withdrawn on 17th February 2021.

7. The petitioners shall produce necessary factual details as regards other litigations, a look at which may be necessary in the present proceeding. By way of supplementary affidavit, such facts shall be disclosed by the petitioners, within two weeks.

8. There is also an issue arising on maintainability of this writ petition (Criminal) particularly because the orders passed by the Government of India have been challenged by the petitioners. In view of section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 an appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order before a Division Bench and while so a criminal appeal can be maintained against the order of cognizance dated 3rd January 2019 passed by the Special Judge (NIA), Ranchi. However, as regards other challenges the learned counsel for the petitioners needs to address the Court whether those challenges can be maintained by the petitioners before a Division Bench.

9. Post the matter on 13th September 2022.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) sudhir