Professor GN Saibaba acquitted by Bombay High Court in case relating to alleged Maoist links

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on Friday acquitted former Delhi University professor GN Saibaba in an alleged Maoist links case [Mahesh Kariman Tirki v State of Maharashtra]..A bench comprising Justices Rohit Deo and Anil Pansare rendered the judgment and allowed an appeal filed by Saibaba challenging a 2017 decision of the trial court convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment.Pertinently, the acquittal was based on the fact that the Sessions Court framed charges against Saibaba in the absence of sanction from the Central government under Section 45(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act..The division bench recorded that while terrorism poses an ominous threat to national security and every legitimate weapon in the armoury must be deployed against it, a civil democracy cannot sacrifice procedural safeguards afforded to the accused.“We are inclined to hold, that every safeguard, however miniscule, legislatively provided to the accused, must be zealously protected,” the judgment said..Any aberration of such safeguards would only be counterproductive, the Court further highlighted, saying that departure from due process of law fosters an ecosystem in which terrorism burgeons.“The siren song that the end justifies the means, and that the procedural safeguards are subservient to the overwhelming need to ensure that the accused is prosecuted and punished, must be muzzled by the voice of rule of law,” the Court opined..Nonetheless, the Court took note of the request of the prosecution urging that if the appeal was not decided on merits, and only on the point of sanction, they may be given the liberty to obtain proper sanction and try the accused.“In view of the well-entrenched position of law, that the rule against double jeopardy has no application if the trial is held vitiated due to invalidity or absence of sanction, we see no reason to dilate any further on the said submission,” the bench said..A Sessions Court in Gadchiroli had, in March 2017, convicted Saibaba and the others for alleged Maoist links and for indulging in activities amounting to waging war against the country..The Sessions Court had held that Saibaba, along with two other accused, possessed naxal literature with the intent and purpose of circulation amongst underground naxlites at Gadchiroli and residents of the district with the aim to incite the people to resort to violence..Further, the court had negated the submission that the absence of sanction to prosecute Saibaba was fatal to the case of the prosecution..It was also observed by the Sessions Judge that no leniency could be shown to Saibaba in view of his 90 per cent disability since he was mentally fit and was part of a think tank of the banned organisation which had brought the industrial and other development in the naxal affected areas to a grinding halt.Before the High Court, Saibaba’s counsel contended that the absence of sanction at the time of framing charge and recoding evidence rendered the proceedings null and void.Further, the bench was informed that while he did challenge the validity of the sanction that came after cognizance was taken, the Sessions judge deferred the consideration on the aspect. .The respondents, on the other hand, said that the trial did not proceed in the absence of sanction, but on the basis of sanction obtained at belated stage.The High Court after examining the rival contentions overturned the decision.It insisted that all procedural safeguards must be followed and, therefore, acquitted all accused persons of the offences under UAPA.“In view of the findings recorded by us, we hold that the proceedings in Sessions Trials 30/2014 and 130/2015 are null and void in the absence of valid sanction under Section 45(1) of the UAPA, and the common judgment impugned is liable to be set aside, which we do order,” the High Court ordered..It also took a poor view of an observation in the Sessions Court judgment saying that imprisonment for life was not a sufficient punishment to the accused, and the hands of the Court were tied in view of the fact that it was the maximum statutorily provided punishment.“We do not approve of the unwarranted observations of the learned Sessions Judge, which may have the unintended consequence of rendering the verdict vulnerable to the charge of lack of dispassionate objectivity,” the High Court recorded..Senior Advocate Subodh Dharmadhikari, Advocates Pradeep Mandhyan, Barunkumar, HP Lingayat and NB Rathod appeared for the appellants.Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave and Assistant Special Public Prosecutor HS Chitaley appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]