Views
3 years ago

Crl.AppealNo.2295-2296of2010

Crl.AppealNo.2295-2296of2010

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -50-The correctness of the impugned judgment and orderspassed by the High Court is under challenge in theseappeals by the accused – appellants, in support ofwhich they urged various facts and legal contentionsbefore this Court.35. The rival legal contentions urged on behalf of theaccused persons and the prosecution will be dealt withas hereunder:Contentions on behalf of the prosecutionWe will first examine the contentions urged on behalfof the prosecution represented by Mr. Ranjit Kumar,the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of theState of Gujarat who has advanced the followingarguments to establish the guilt of the accusedpersons:The procedure under Section 50 of POTA was followed bythe State Government while granting sanction:

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -51-36. It was contended by the learned senior counselthat on completion of the investigation, PW-126forwarded a complete set of papers and his reportthrough official channel recommending prosecutionagainst all six accused persons under the provisionsof POTA. The sanction granted by the Home Departmentwas given under the signature of the Deputy Secretaryof the said department, Mr. J.R Rajput by sanction no.SB.V/POTA/10/2003/152 (Ex.498). All the papers werereceived by the sanctioning authority on 12.11.2003and the section officer put up the file to the UnderSecretary on 13.11.2003 and after proper applicationof mind, the sanction was approved by Kuldeep ChandKapur, Principal Secretary, Home Department (PW-88) on15.11.2003 and it was sent back to the Minister forState (Home) who approved it on 18.11.2003 andreceived back these papers from the Minister on19.11.2003 and thereafter sanction order was issued on21.11.2003. It was further submitted that the

148LZWA
TIME TO ACT - CSIR
vdyTh
Operation Marble
RECORDING
HamMUN 2012 Study Guide_HRC
sqZGgcLN
TP_051718
GibLive! - Free2Read
instructions
HRC_in_2016
rzz-agm-2015
edmc-03136880