2018 (1) TMI 1403 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of Offence - whether the allegation of the offence against the accused is maintainable under Section 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has been taken up by the accused in Crl.A.No.460 of 2017? Held that - Since the matter is already placed before the Full Bench, it is appropriate that the Full Bench consider the matter in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Further, if the trial is stayed as sought for by the petitioner, it will render substantial injustice and cause miscarriage of justice. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
2. Request to defer trial pending decision on the application of UAP Act.
3. Allegation of prejudice to the accused if trial proceeds.
4. Prosecution's argument against deferring trial.
5. Decision on deferring final judgment pending decision in criminal appeal.

Interpretation of Sections 16 and 18 of UAP Act:
The petition raised a question regarding the maintainability of the offence against the accused under Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The matter was referred to the Full Bench due to a previous decision of the Court. The prosecution emphasized that the application of the UAP Act is a technical issue and should be decided by the Full Bench. The Court acknowledged the importance of this issue and decided to defer the final judgment until a decision is made in the criminal appeal regarding the UAP Act's application.

Request to defer trial pending decision on UAP Act:
The accused, third in the case, sought to defer the trial until a decision was reached in the criminal appeal regarding the UAP Act. The defense argued that proceeding with the trial would prejudice the accused. The defense counsel for other accused also supported this request. However, the Special Public Prosecutor representing the NIA contended that proceeding with the trial would not cause prejudice and accused the attempt to defer the trial as a tactic to stall proceedings.

Allegation of prejudice to the accused if trial proceeds:
The defense raised concerns that continuing with the trial would be unfair to the accused and could lead to prejudice. They argued that the trial should be deferred to prevent any injustice. The Court considered these arguments but also noted the importance of not causing a miscarriage of justice by unnecessarily delaying the trial.

Prosecution's argument against deferring trial:
The Special Public Prosecutor representing the NIA opposed the request to defer the trial, stating that it was an attempt by the accused to delay the proceedings. The prosecution emphasized that the burden of proving certain facts lies with them and that the question of the UAP Act's application should be decided by the Full Bench. They suggested that final judgment could be deferred pending the decision in the criminal appeal.

Decision on deferring final judgment pending decision in criminal appeal:
Considering the situation and the pending decision on the UAP Act's application in the criminal appeal, the Court decided to defer the passing of the final judgment in the trial until a decision was made in the criminal appeal. This decision aimed to ensure fairness and prevent any miscarriage of justice. It was clarified that the trial could proceed while the final judgment was deferred pending the decision in the criminal appeal.