Telangana High Court
Abdul Khadar Abdul Quadar vs Union Of India on 22 September, 2025
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.684 OF 2025
% Delivered on: 22--09--2025
# Sri Abdul Khadar @ Abdul Quadar and others
... Appellants
vs.
$ Union of India and another
... Respondents
!Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Shaik Muhammed Abed
^Counsel for Respondent No.2: P.Vishnuvardhana Reddy
Special Public Prosecutor for NIA
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred:
1. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2610
2. (2014) 14 SCC 295
3. (2007) 1 SCC 1
4. (2020) 17 SCC 664
5. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 911
6. Indian Kanoon-http://indiankanoon.org/doc/123815068/
2/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.684 OF 2025
Between:
Sri Abdul Khadar @ Abdul Quadar and others
... Appellants
And
Union of India and another
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 22.09.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
1. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No
_____________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J
3/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL.NO.684 OF 2025
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Justice B.R.Madhusudhan Rao)
The present Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 21 of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, aggrieved by the order
dated 18.06.2025 passed by the learned IV Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge cum Special Court for NIA Cases at Hyderabad in
Crl.M.P.No.2224 of 2024, in Spl. SC 1 of 2023 (RC-
03/2022/NIA/HYD), NIA, Hyderabad.
2.1. Appellants are A1, A5 and A24 in Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2023. They
have filed an interlocutory application in the said Appeal vide
Crl.M.P.No.2224 of 2024 under Section 45 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act to examine impugned sanction dated
28.12.2022.
2.2. It is stated in the application (Crl.M.P.No.2224 of 2024) that
police, Town-VI PS, Nizamabad, initially raided the house of the
petitioners without following due process of law and registered
a case in FIR No.141 of 2022 dated 04.07.2022 under Sections
120-B, 121-A, 153-A, 141 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 13(1)(b) of
4/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (herein after referred
to as UA (P) Act, 1967), against them and they were produced
before the concerned Court for remand and later the investigation
was transferred to NIA, Hyderabad. Petitioners-A1, A5 and A24 are
falsely implicated in the crime. Police are the complainant and
"suo motu" crime is registered, the allegations are vague and
general and even going by the version of the prosecution, papers
and books, there is no material to show that the petitioners have
committed the offence. Perusing the entire evidence in the charge
sheet and without contesting it even if it is taken on its face, it has
no ingredients of Section 18, 18(A), 18(B) of UA (P) Act, 1967, as to
invoke and apply the above mentioned provisions, it is mandate to
satisfy the ingredient of Section 15 of UA(P) Act which has defined
the Terrorist Act.
2.3. Complainant Agency has investigated the case and filed
charge sheet under schedule offences after obtaining sanction
under Sections 13(1)(b), 18, 18(A) and 18(B) of UA(P)A, 1967 and
the sanction is bald and subjective.
2.4. Perusal of the sanction order, it does not reflect that the
sanctioning authority has applied its mind while passing the order
and there is no reference of any discussion or material which
became the basis of granting sanction under the schedule offences.
5/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
There is no whisper in the impugned sanction order when the
matter was referred to the independent authority and when the
independent authority has submitted that recommendation, which
information is just and necessary in the order of such nature and
contravention of these process vitiate the sanction, same cannot be
cured at any stage.
2.5. Most of the statements recorded by the police are barred
under Section 306 of Cr.P.C. which is not forthcoming in the
impugned sanction order, which is contrary to the order of the
Central Government declaring the alleged accused persons
organization as "unlawful association" under Section 3 of UA(P)
Act. Petitioners-A1, A5 and A24 and other co-accused persons are
suffering due to wrong and illegal sanction which is prejudicial to
them and lead to failure of justice. The Trial Court is the first
forum to examine the validity of the sanction, there is no legal
embargo to summon the entire file of impugned sanction and
examine its veracity. The case of the prosecution is per se training
case. Sanctioning Authority and recommendation authority
passed a mechanical order which amounts to failure of justice.
3.1. Respondent-NIA filed counter and contended that there is no
provision under Section 45 of UA(P) Act, 1967 which provides for
summoning of record by the Court. The Court has taken
6/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
cognizance of the offence against the petitioners-A1, A5 and A24
after examining the prosecution sanction available on record and
after being satisfied prima facie that the prosecution has obtained
valid sanction from the competent authority prescribed under the
law. The stage of examining the validity of the sanction is during
the trial, which cannot be examined at the stage of enquiry or pre-
trial stage and the burden of proving valid sanction is always on
the prosecution. The present case is a Sessions Triable case and
the procedure is provided under Sections 225 to 237 of Cr.P.C.
which has to be followed with the mandate of Section 4 of Cr.P.C.
The applicable procedure does not empower the Court to
receive/take/record or calling a witness prior to framing of charge
under Section 228 of Cr.P.C.
3.2. The petition is misconceived for the reason that it seeks to
call the members of the independent Review Committee of a
statutory body to appear as witness for giving their opinion to the
Competent Authority. A1, A5 and A24 alleged that impugned
sanction order lacks any indication of when the matter was
referred to the Independent Authority and when the Independent
Authority submitted its recommendation to the Sanctioning
Authority, the said allegations are unfounded, which are very
much present in Para Nos.4 and 5 of the sanction.
7/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
3.3. The petitioners are attempting to mislead the Court to create
doubt and delay the framing of charge which would ultimately
benefit the petitioner. Petitioner No.1-Accused No.1 previously
filed WP.No.27309 of 2023 before the High Court of Telangana to
quash all the statements relied upon in the charge sheet on the
ground that proper procedure under Section 306 of Cr.P.C. was not
followed, which came to be dismissed on 15.04.2024.
Subsequently, accused No.1 challenged the decision by filing a Writ
Appeal No.1005 of 2024 before the High Court, which also came to
be dismissed on 27.09.2024. Validity of the sanction order cannot
be adjudicated at the pre-trial stage and can only be challenged
during the trial. The present petition seeks to question the validity
of the sanction order prior to the trial is without merit and the
application came to be filed after lapse of 23 months since filing the
charge sheet against the petitioners and it is a deliberate attempt
to delay the framing of charges, prayed to dismiss the same.
4. The learned Trial Court after hearing the counsel has
disposed of the application vide order dated 18.06.2025 holding
that the contentions raised thereon have to be looked into at the
stage of Trial.
5.1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
impugned order is illegal, unjust and improper and against the
8/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
principles of law. Investigating Agency has falsely implicated the
accused persons along with the appellants-A1, A5 and A24 under
the stringent provisions of law based on fabricated documents and
make believe narratives in Spl.SC No.01 of 2023 on the file of IV
MSJ cum Spl. Judge for NIA, Hyderabad. From the face of the
record, the sanction is bald, subjective and the Sanctioning
Authority has not applied its mind while passing the sanction
order. There is no reference of any discussion or material which
becomes the basis for granting sanction under the schedule offence
and the sanction has to be questioned at the earliest stage and
after cognizance stage.
5.2. Appellants-A1, A5 and A24 and other co-accused persons
are suffering due to wrong and illegal sanction and the Trial Court
is the first forum to examine the validity of the sanction order.
There is no legal embargo on the Court to summon the entire file of
the impugned sanction and examine the same by giving an
opportunity to the party to examine the veracity of the impugned
sanction.
5.3. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the decision of the
Supreme Court which held that UA (P) Act is distinct Act and there
is no saving clause to cure the defects in the sanction.
9/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
5.4. The Trial Court wrongly assumed that the appellants-A1, A5
and A24 are trying to obstruct and delay the proceedings by filing
the application. The findings regarding validity or sanction will
assist the Trial Court to frame proper charge under the valid
offences, which will save the valuable time of the Court to render
justice. The Trial Court neither appreciated the legal provision nor
the principles of natural justice, passed the impugned order on
vague grounds which are neither relevant nor legal to deny the
relief sought in the Court below. It is settled position of law that
accused cannot be charged in the absence of valid sanction for the
offences for which offences are warranted. Though the Code does
not prescribe examining any witnesses before framing the charge,
but examining the sanctioning authority is not an examination of
any witness on fact, it is on the limited aspect to ascertain that
quasi-judicial authority has performed its statutory duty which is
sacrosanct and prayed to set aside the impugned order.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-NIA submits that the
Trial court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and
rightly disposed of the application holding that the appellants-A1,
A5 and A24 can raise all the contentions at the stage of trial, no
interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the Appeal.
10/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
7. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for
the NIA have cited decisions in support of their contentions which
will be referred to in the subsequent Paras.
8. Heard counsel on record, perused the material.
9. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the impugned
order in Crl.M.P.No.2224 of 2024 in Spl. SC 1 of 2023, dated
18.06.2025 passed by IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge
cum Spl. Court for the NIA Cases at Hyderabad suffers from any
perversity or illegality, if so, requires interference of this Court or
not?
10. Before discussing the issue, it is apt to refer Section 45 of
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 which reads as
under:
"45. Cognizance of offences.-
[(1)] No court shall take cognizance of any offence--
(i) under Chapter III without the previous sanction of the
Central Government or any officer authorised by the Central
Government in this behalf;
(ii) under Chapter IV and VI without the previous sanction of
the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State
Government, and [if] such offence is committed against the
Government of a foreign country without the previous sanction
of the Central Government.
[(2) Sanction for prosecution under sub-section (1) shall be
given within such time as may be prescribed only after
11/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
considering the report of such authority appointed by the
Central Government or, as the case may be, the State
Government which shall make an independent review of the
evidence gathered in the course of investigation and make a
recommendation, within such time as may be prescribed, to
the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State
Government.]"
11. The prayer made in the application (Crl.M.P.No.2224 of
2024) reads as under:
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to summon the records of impugned sanction dated
28.12.2022 and examine the sanction and recommendation
authority by providing opportunity to accused counsel to test
the veracity of impugned sanction, in the view of latest legal
position as explained in Fuleshwar Gope Vs. Union of India,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2610 and pass any such other order or
orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the above said case, in the interests of
justice".
12.1. P.S. Nizamabad VI Town Police has registered the case in
FIR No.141 of 2022 dated 04.07.2022 against the petitioners-A1,
A5 and A24 and other accused for the offences under Sections
120B, 121A, 153A, 141 r/w Section 34 of IPC, Section 13(1)(b) of
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. On the same day,
they conducted a raid in the house of the petitioner No.1-accused
No.1 in Nizamabad, Telangana State and seized several
12/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
incriminating documents-articles and also arrested petitioner
Nos.2 and 3 - A5, A24 and A28.
12.2. On 26.08.2022, the Government of India, Ministry of Home
Affairs issued a Letter vide order No.F.No.11011/73/2022-NIA
dated 25.08.2022, entrusted the investigation to National
Investigation Agency (NIA Hyderabad). NIA Hyderabad took over
the investigation of the case in FIR No.141 of 2022 dated
04.07.2022 of VI Town PS, Nizamabad and re-registered the
original case as Case No.RC-03-2022/NIA/Hyderabad in NIA Police
Station, Hyderabad on 26.08.2022 under Section 120B, 121A,
153A, 141 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 13(1)(b), 18A and 18B
of UA(P) Act, 1967.
12.3. A4, A16, A17, A29 were arrested and thereafter another five
accused i.e., A32 to A36 were also arrested and the charge sheet
came to be filed by the NIA against eleven accused persons
including the appellants-petitioners-A1, A5, A24. The Trial Court
has taken cognizance of the case and numbered it as Spl. SC No.1
of 2023. Supplementary charge sheet is filed against A32 to A36
and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court, numbered
as Spl. SC No.2 of 2023. On 31.08.2023, the Trial Court has
passed split up order against the absconding accused i.e., A2, A3
and A4 and allotted Spl. SC No.4 of 2023 and on 21.09.2023, the
13/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
Trial Court has clubbed Spl. SC No.2 of 2023 with Spl. SC No.1 of
2023 for conducting common proceedings. NIA has filed
supplementary charge sheet against A31 before the Trial Court, the
same is numbered as Spl. SC No.7 of 2023. On 18.01.2024, the
Trial Court has closed Spl. SC No.7 of 2023 and merged with Spl.
SC No.1 of 2023 for conducting common proceedings.
13.1. Sanction order for prosecution is dated 28.12.2022. NIA vide
its letter dated 22.12.2022 has forwarded the investigation report
of the case along with the list of documents collected and witnesses
examined during the course of investigation and recommended for
prosecution of the accused persons for section of law mentioned
against their names and has sought sanction of the Central
Government under Section 45(1) of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 196 of Cr.P.C.
13.2. In terms of Section 45 (2) of the UA (P) Act and the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of
Prosecution) Rules, 2008 has referred the Investigation Report vide
Ministry's letter of even numbers dated 23.12.2022 to the
Authority comprising two members namely Justice Dr.Satish
Chandra (Retired) and Dr. T.K.Vishwanadhan - Law Secretary
(Retired) constituted vide Ministry's Order No.11034/1/2009/IS-
14/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
IV dated 03.07.2015 for making an independent review of the
evidence gathered in the course of investigation.
13.3. It is mentioned in the Sanction Order dated 28.12.2022 at
Para 5 that "whereas the authority vide Letter dated 24.12.2022
forwarded its report to this Ministry within the time limit as
prescribed in Rule 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
(Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 and
after being satisfied with the material available on record and facts
and circumstances therein, recommended for sanction for
prosecution against the accused persons under the relevant
sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
13.4. It is further stated at Para 6 that "the Central Government,
after carefully examining the material placed on record and the
recommendations of the Authority, is satisfied that a prima facie
case is made out against the accused persons under the relevant
sections of law and hereby accords sanction for prosecution under
Section 45(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and
Section 196 of Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the following accused
persons in the Case No.RC-03/2002/NIA/Hyderabad of NIA for
sections of law mentioned against respective persons for taking
cognizance of the said offences by a Court of competent
jurisdiction.
15/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
14. Appellant's counsel has strongly placed reliance on the
principle laid down by Apex Court in Fuleshwar Gope Vs. Union of
India and Others1.
15. The question fell for consideration before the Supreme Court
in Fuleshwar Gope case1 is (i) Whether the validity of the Sanction
Order can be challenged at any stage? (ii) Whether a violation of
Section 45(2) of the UAPA r/w Rule 3 and 4, if any, vitiates the
proceedings?
16. The Supreme Court while deciding the validity of sanction
being challenged and stage it may be permissible, has referred to
the following decisions:
16.1. In Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar
Aggarwal 2, noted the importance of the process of grant of
sanction. Relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
"16.1. The prosecution must send the entire relevant
record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR,
disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery
memos, draft charge sheet and all other relevant material.
The record so sent should also contain the
material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in
favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the
competent authority may refuse sanction.
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2610
(2014) 14 SCC 295
16/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
16.2. The authority itself has to do complete and conscious
scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution
independently applying its mind and taking into
consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction
while discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction.
16.3. The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly
keeping in mind the public interest and the protection
available to the accused against whom the sanction is
sought.
16.4. The order of sanction should make it evident that the
authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and
had applied its mind to all the relevant material.
16.5. In every individual case, the prosecution has to
establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the
entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning
authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same
and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with
law".
16.2. In Parkash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab 3, Apex Court
held that "an authority, which is the sanctioning authority is not
required to separately specify each of the offences against the
accused public servant. This is to be done at the stage of framing
of charge. What the law requires is that materials must be placed
before the sanctioning authority so as to enable the application of
mind in arriving at a decision".
(2007) 1 SCC 1
17/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
16.3. In Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Pramila Virendra
Kumar Agarwal 4, while referring to Dinesh Kumar ((2012) 1 SCC
532), Apex Court reiterated the distinction between absence of
sanction and the alleged invalidity of sanction on account of non-
application of mind. It was held that absence as in issue can be
raised at the threshold, however, invalidity, as an issue can only be
raised at trial.
16.4. In State of Karnataka Vs. Subbegowda 5, while addressing
the question of sanction and its validity in the context of PC Act,
Apex Court underscored that challenge to sanction should be
brought at the earliest stage possible. It was held that :
"10. It is well settled proposition of law that the question
with regard to the validity of such sanction should be raised at
the earliest stage of the proceedings, however could be raised
at the subsequent stage of the trial also. In our opinion, the
stages of proceedings at which an accused could raise the
issue with regard to the validity of the sanction would be the
stage when the Court takes cognizance of the offence, the
stage when the charge is to be framed by the Court or at the
stage when the trial is complete i.e., at the stage of final
arguments in the trial. Such issue of course, could be raised
before the Court in appeal, revision or confirmation, however
the powers of such court would be subject to sub-section (3)
and sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the said Act. It is also
significant to note that the competence of the court trying the
accused also would be dependent upon the existence of the
(2020) 17 SCC 664
2023 SCC OnLine SC 911
18/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
validity of sanction, and therefore it is always desirable to raise
the issue of validity of sanction at the earliest point of time. It
cannot be gainsaid that in case the sanction is found to be
invalid, the trial court can discharge the accused and relegate
the parties to a stage where the competent authority may
grant a fresh sanction for the prosecution in accordance with
the law".
17. The Supreme Court at Para Nos.17 and 18 of Fuleshwar
Gope1 observed as under:
"17. The afore-cited authorities point to only one conclusion
which is that sanction, though should be challenged at the
earliest possible opportunity, it can be challenged at a later
stage as well. These judgments, although not specifically in the
context of laws such as UAPA, posit a generally acceptable rule
that a right available to the accused, which may provide an
opportunity to establish innocence, should not be foreclosed
by operation of law, unless specifically provided within the
statutory text. At the same time, challenging validity of
sanction cannot and should not be a weapon to slow down or
stall otherwise valid prosecution. Other legislations such as
the CrPC provide mechanisms for the sanction and
subsequent actions to be saved from being invalidated due to
any irregularity etc. Section 465 CrPC provides for the
possibility that a sanction granted under Section 197 CrPC
can be saved by its operation. Similarly, a sanction under the
PC Act, if found that there was any error, omission or
irregularity would not be vitiated unless the same has resulted
in failure of justice.
18. The UAPA does not provide for any such saving of the
sanction. This implies that, in the wisdom of the legislature,
the inbuilt mechanism of the Act of having two authorities
19/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
apply their mind to the grant of a sanction, is sufficient. This
emphasizes the role and sanctity of the operation to be carried
out by both these authorities. In order to challenge the grant of
sanction as invalid, the grounds that can be urged are that (1)
all the relevant material was not placed before the authority;
(2) the authority has not applied its mind to the said material;
and (3) insufficiency of material. This list is only illustrative
and not exhaustive. The common thread that runs through the
three grounds of challenge above is that the party putting
forward this challenge has to lead evidence to such effect.
That, needless to say, can only be done before the Trial Court.
In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding
that while we recognise the treasured right of an accused to
avail all remedies available to him under law, in ordinary
circumstances challenge to sanction under UAPA should be
raised at the earliest possible opportunity so as to enable the
Trial Court to determine the question, for its competence to
proceed further and the basis on which any other proceeding
on the appellate side would depend on the answer to this
question. [See : S. Subbegowda (supra)]5
In the attending facts and circumstances of the present
case, keeping in view the submission made at the bar that the
trial is underway and numerous witnesses (113 out of 125)
already stand examined, we refrain from returning any finding
on the challenge to the validity of the sanction qua the present
appellant and leave it to be raised before the Trial Judge, who
shall, if such a question is raised decide, it promptly".
18. In so far as violation of Section 45(2) of UAPA r/w Rule 3
and 4, the Supreme Court observed as Para 41 which reads as
under:
20/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
41. "Having given our attention to the position of law as
above, let us now turn to the instant facts. Simply put, the
objection of the appellant arises from the short amount of time
taken in recommending and granting sanction, against him
which he claims to be sign of non- application of mind and
lack of independent review. We are unable to accept such a
contention. There is nothing on record to show that relevant
material was not placed before the authorities. There is no
question, as there rightly cannot be, on the competence of
either of the authorities. Therefore, solely on the ground that
the time taken was comparatively short or even that other
orders were similarly worded cannot call the credibility of the
sanction into question. As has been noted in Superintendent
of Police (CBI) v. Deepak Chowdhary ((1995) 6 SCC 225), the
authorities are required only to reach a prima facie satisfaction
that the relevant facts, as gathered in the investigation would
constitute the offence or not. In Mahesh G. Jain ((2013) 8 SCC
119) it has been held that the prosecution is to prove that a
valid sanction has been granted. This needless to state, can
only be done by adducing evidence at trial, where the defence
in challenge thereto, will necessarily have to be given an
opportunity to question the same and put forward its case that
the two essential requirements detailed above, have not been
met. Furthermore, in Mohd. Iqbal M. Shaikh v. State of
Maharashtra ((1998) 4 SCC 494), a case under the TADA, this
Court was faced with a similar situation, the sanction wherein
was granted by the competent authority, i.e., the
Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay on the same day that
he received the papers in that regard. The contention of non-
application of mind was not accepted by the Court observing
that so long as the sanction was by a competent authority and
after applying its mind to all materials and the same being
reflected in the order, the sanction would hold to be valid. It
21/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
was further held that when an order does not so indicate, the
prosecution is entitled to adduce evidence aliunde of the
person who granted the sanction and that would be sufficient
compliance. The Court would then, look into such evidence to
arrive at a conclusion as to whether application of mind was
present or absent. In conclusion, we hold that independent
review as well as application of mind are questions to be
determined by way of evidence and as such should be raised at
the stage of trial, so as to ensure that there is no undue delay
in the proceedings reaching their logical and lawful conclusion
on these grounds. As a result of the conclusion drawn by this
Court on the first issue, it is also to be said that if the sanction
is taken exception to, on the above grounds, it has to be raised
at the earliest instance and not belatedly, however, law does
not preclude the same from being challenged at a later stage. It
is to be noted that the scheme of the UAPA does not house a
provision such as Section 19 of the PC Act which protects
proceedings having been initiated on the basis of sanctions
which come to be questioned at a later point in time and,
therefore, Courts ought to be careful in entertaining belated
challenges. If it is raised belatedly, however, the Court seized
of the matter, must consider the reasons for the delay prior to
delving into the merits of such objections. This we may say so
for the reason that belated challenges on these grounds cannot
be allowed to act as roadblocks in trial or cannot be used as
weapons in shirking away from convictions arising out of
otherwise validly conducted prosecutions and trials.
An order passed by an administrative authority is not to be
tested by way of judicial review on the same anvil as a judicial
or quasi-judicial order. While it is imperative for the latter to
record reasons for arriving at a particular decision, for the
former it is sufficient to show that the authority passing such
order applied its mind to the relevant facts and materials [See:
22/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
P.P. Sharma (1992 Supp(1) SCC 222); Navjot Sandhu ((2005)
11 SCC 600) and Mahesh G. Jain (supra)] That being the
accepted position we find no infirmity in the order granting
sanction against A-17. It is not incumbent upon such
authority to record detailed reasons to support its conclusion
and, as such, the orders challenged herein, cannot be faulted
with on that ground".
19. After conclusion of the arguments, the matter was reserved
for Orders. Appellant's counsel has filed latest copy of Sanction
Order dated 01.07.2025 as an example issued by Ministry of Home
Affairs, CTCR Division, wherein in Para 4, it is stated as under:
"4. And whereas, the NIA, vide its letter dated 26.06.2025
has forwarded the Investigation Report of the case along with
relevant documents and recommended for prosecution of 1
(one) accused person mentioned below for the sections of law
mentioned against his name and has sought sanction of the
Central Government under Section 45(1) of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act and section 196 of CrPC (now
section 217 of BNSS, 2023)".
20. The only difference in the Sanction Order dated 28.12.2022
compared with the latest Sanction Order dated 01.07.2025 is that
in the latest sanction Order (01.07.2025), it is mentioned as
relevant documents. Whereas, in the Sanction Order dated
28.12.2022, it is mentioned as Investigation Report of the case
along with list of documents and witnesses examined during the
course of the investigation. Appellant's counsel has pointed out
23/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
that there is a major difference with regard to list of documents
and relevant documents. The contention of the appellant's counsel
cannot be accepted in view of the fact that list of documents
collected means the relevant documents pertaining to the crime.
Hence, the contention of the appellant's counsel that all the
material is not sent to the Central Government is negatived.
21.1. Learned counsel for the respondent-NIA relied on National
Investigation Agency Vs. Mohammed Shiyab 6. The point fell for
consideration before the Division Bench of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bangalore is "if the Sanction Order is issued by
Competent Authority, but the accused wants to question the
Sanction Order on the ground that there is no application of mind
by the Authority or that all the material was not placed before him,
the appropriate stage is trial".
21.2. The Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru has also referred to Fuleshwar Gope's case1 and
observed at Para 18 that :
"18. Therefore the conclusion is if sanction order is issued
by a competent authority and it has to be challenged on any
ground such as non application of mind, not placing all the
materials before the sanctioning authority etc., the proper
stage is trial."
Indian Kanoon-http://indiankanoon.org/doc/123815068/
24/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
22. Appellant's counsel has contended that the judgment
rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka
dated 26.04.2025 in National Investigation Agency Vs. Mohammed
Shayug is under challenge before the Supreme Court and he has
filed the Case Diary No.48851 of 2025.
23. The points raised by the appellants in Crl.M.P.No.2224 of
2024 are to test the veracity of the impugned sanction dated
28.12.2022. The grounds that can be urged are 1) All the relevant
material was not placed before the Authority 2) The Authority has
not applied its mind to the said material and 3) Insufficiency of
material. The party putting forward this challenge has to lead
evidence to that affect. The Law requires is that material must be
placed before the Sanctioning Authority so as to enable the
application of mind in arriving at a decision. There is nothing on
record to show that relevant material was not placed before the
Authorities. The Authorities are required only to reach a prima
facie satisfaction that the relevant facts as gathered in the
investigation would constitute the offence or not. It is the
prosecution who has to prove that a valid sanction has been
granted. Independent review as well as application of mind or
questions to be determined by way of evidence and as such should
be raised at the stage of Trial.
25/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
24. On careful reading of Section 45(2) of the UA(P) Act which
says that the sanction for prosecution shall be given only after
considering the report of such authority which shall make an
independent review of the evidence gathered in the course of
investigation. On close reading of the Sanction Order dated
28.12.2022, it clearly states that NIA has forwarded the
Investigation Report of the case along with the list of documents
collected and witnesses examined during the course of
investigation. That goes to show that NIA has submitted the entire
material pertaining to the case i.e., RC-03/2022/NIA/Hyderabad
dated 26.08.2022 and the Authority having been satisfied with the
material available on record and facts and circumstances of the
case, recommended for sanction for prosecution of the accused
vide letter dated 24.12.2022.
25. The Supreme Court in Fuleshwar Gope's case1 has observed
that "it is not incumbent upon such authority to record detailed
reasons to support its conclusion and as such the orders
challenged therein cannot be faulted with on that ground".
26. Coming to the case on hand, at the stage of framing of
charge, the validity of the Sanction cannot be considered. It is for
the Trial Court to consider the same during trial.
26/26 KL,J & BRMR,J
Criminal Appeal_684_2025
27. The Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by
the appellant (Crl.M.P.No.2224 of 2024) by assigning cogent
reasons. We are of the view that no interference is called for.
Appeal deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
28. Criminal Appeal No.684 of 2025 is dismissed.
Interim orders, if any, stands vacated. Miscellaneous
applications, if any, stands closed.
____________________
K.LAKSHMAN, J
______________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
22nd September, 2025
PLV
Note: LR copy be marked.
