Lieutenant Colonel Shrikant Prasad Purohit on Thursday moved the Supreme Court against a Bombay High Court order dismissing his plea to quash a decision by a Special Court to take cognisance of offences against him in the 2008 Malegaon blasts case without a “valid sanction” for prosecution.
“The Special Court is likely to proceed with the framing of charges against the petitioner [Purohit] and others under the offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The continuance of prosecution without determining the existence of a valid sanction shall amount to manifest injustice and an abuse of process of law,” Mr. Purohit pleaded.
Mr. Purohit had failed to convince the High Court to quash the cognisance taken by the Special Court for offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act for want of prior sanction mandated under Sections 45 (1) and (2) of the Act.
“The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the High Court on December 18, 2017 dismissing his writ petition and also the order of the Special Court, which refused to consider the existence of a valid sanction prior to taking of cognisance of the offence,” the plea said.
The Supreme Court had granted bail to Mr. Purohit after he spent nine years behind bars. The petition claimed that the High Court upheld the trial court’s order to take cognisance of the charges against Mr. Purohit on the ground that the question of prior sanction would be decided at the stage of trial and not now.
Absence of sanction
“It is settled law that when a safeguard or a right is provided favouring the accused, compliance thereto has to be strictly construed and that absence of sanction prior to cognisance is not a mere technical defect and hence continuance of prosecution in the absence of a valid sanction shall be deemed to non est,” Mr. Purohit argued in the petition filed in the apex court.
He said no purpose would be served by putting him through the “great stress and trauma of facing a trial without a sanction by the Competent Authority, in addition to the same being an abuse of process of law.”
