Kerala High Court
Vikraman vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) on 10 April, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:32073
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2026/20TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.REV.PET.NO.293 OF 2023
CRIME NO.780/2014 OF KATHIRUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2023 IN S.C.NO.343 OF 2017 OF
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL SESSIONS COURT (SPE/CBI CASES)-III, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 25:
1 VIKRAMAN
AGED 45 YEARS
KATTIL MEETHAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKE KADIRUR, THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 670642
2 JIJESH.C.P,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.DAMU NAMBIDI, 36 YEARS, KUNIYIL HOUSE,
KIZHAKKE KADIRUR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670642
3 PRAKASHAN.C
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, KEERTHANAM, EAST KADIRUR.P.O,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA,
PIN - 670642
4 PRABHAKARAN.T
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.ACHU, LUDHIYA NIVAS, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE,
MALUR.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 691526
5 SHIBIN
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.GANGADHARAN, OTHAYOTH HOUSE, VETTUMMAL,
KADIRUR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 670642
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& :: 2 ::
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
6 SUJITH.P
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.SURENDRAN, CHOOLAVIL HOUSE, KOTTAYAMPOYIL P.O,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670691
7 VINOD @ VINU
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.BALAKRISHANAN, NANDIATH HOUSE, KADIRUR.P.O,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670642
8 RIJU
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.AANDI, MEETHALA THACHARATH, KAVILMOOLA P.O.,
MALUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670611
9 SINIL,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.NARAYANAN, SINIL NIVAS, KUNNUMMAL,
THOLAMBRA.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670673
10 BIJESH POOVADAN @ BIJU
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, MEETHALA THACHARATH, KAVILMOOLA P.O,
MALOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 670611
11 KRISHNAN ARAPPAYIL
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.POKKAN, MANIKKAL, THADIKADVU P.O, CHAPPRAPADAVU,
TALIPARAMABA, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 670581
12 A.RAMACHANDRAN @ RAMAN
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.GOVINDAN, PUTHALATH POYIL, KIZHAKKE KADIRUR,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670642.
13 VIJESH @ MUTHU
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.BHASKARAN, KANATHIL HOUSE, UKKAS MOTTA, KADIRUR,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670642
14 VIJESH @ GEORGEKUTTI,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.VALSAN, VALIYAPARAMBATH, UKKAS MOTTA, THALASSERY
TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 670642
15 MANOJ,
AGED 43 YEARS
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& :: 3 ::
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
S/O.RAGHAVAN, KANNOTH HOUSE, BRAHMAVU MUKKU,
KIZHAKKE KADIRUR THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670642
16 SHABITH
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.GOVINDAN, MEETHALE VALIYOTH, BRHAMAVU MUKKU,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA,
PIN - 670642
17 NITH @ NIJITH
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.RAJAN, VAKKUMMAL, AMBILAD.P.O, NIRMALAGIRI,
KUTHUPARAMBA, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 670701
18 SIRAJ
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.KHADAR, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, NARAVOOR.P.O,
KUTHUPARAMBA, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670671
19 P.P.RAHIM @ JAGA RAHIM
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED, POOLAKKANDI PARAMBA, AMBILAD.P.O,
NOW RESIDING AT C.K.QUARTERS, 24/393, KUTHUPARAMBA
MUNICIPALITY, PAZHAYANIRATH, KERALA, PIN - 670701
20 T.I.MADHUSOODHANAN
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, 'NIRANJANA' MAVICHERY,
PAYYANNUR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.PAYYANNUR,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 670307
21 RIJESH @ RIJU
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.BALAN, KUNNUMAL HOUSE, EAST KADIRUR,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670642
22 MAHESH
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.NANU, KATTIAL MEETHAL HOUSE, EAST KADIRUR,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA,
PIN - 670642
23 SUNIL KUMAR @ SUNOOTTY,
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& :: 4 ::
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.KORAN, KULAPPURATHUKANDI HOUSE, EAST KADIRUR,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA,
PIN - 670642
24 SAJILESH V.P
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, MANGALASSERY HOUSE,
CHUNDAGAPOYIL, KADIRUR, THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 670642
25 P JAYRAJAN
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, 'KAIRALI', POOKODU.P.O,
PATTIYAM AMSOM, KONGATTA DESOM,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670643
BY ADV.SRI.D.ARUN BOSE
BY ADV.SRI.K.VISWAN
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE, CBI/SCB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.), CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION (CBI)
BY SRI.P.SREEKUMAR, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF
INDIA
BY SRI.SREELAL N. WARRIER, SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, CBI
BY ADV.SRI.MAHESWAR PADICKAL
BY ADV.SMT.SREEDEVI PRATHAP
BY ADV.SMT.SRILAKSHMI T.S.
BY ADV.SMT.SHILPA SIVAN
BY ADV.SRI.HAREESH R.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 08.04.2026, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.NO.3117 OF 2023 AND
CRL.M.C.NO.3238 OF 2023, THE COURT ON 10.04.2026 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& :: 5 ::
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2026/20TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.M.C.NO.3117 OF 2023
CRIME NO.780/2014 OF KATHIRUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2023 IN CRMP.NO.2978/2022
IN S.C.NO.343 OF 2017 OF ADDITIONAL SPECIAL SESSIONS COURT
(SPE/CBI CASES)-III, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 19:
1 VIKRAMAN
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.BALAN, KATTIL MEETHAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKE KADIRUR,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670642
2 JIJESH.C.P
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.DAMU NAMBIDI, KUNIYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKE KADIRUR,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670642
3 PRAKASHAN.C
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, KEERTHANAM, EAST KADIRUR.P.O,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670642
4 PRABHAKARAN.T
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.ACHU, LUDHIYA NIVAS, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, MALUR.P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 691526
5 SHIBIN
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.GANGADHARAN, OTHAYOTH HOUSE, VETTUMMAL,
KADIRUR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670642
6 SUJITH.P
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& :: 6 ::
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.SURENDRAN, CHOOLAVIL HOUSE, KOTTAYAMPOYIL.P.O,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670691
7 VINOD @ VINU
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.BALAKRISHANAN, NANDIATH HOUSE, KADIRUR.P.O,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670642
8 RIJU
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.AANDI, MEETHALA THACHARATH, KAVILMOOLA P.O,
MALUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670611
9 SINIL,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.NARAYANAN, SINIL NIVAS, KUNNUMMAL, THOLAMBRA.P.O,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670673
0 BIJESH POOVADAN @ BIJU
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, MEETHALA THACHARATH, KAVILMOOLA P.O,
MALOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670611
11 KRISHNAN ARAPPAYIL
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.POKKAN, MANIKKAL, THADIKADVU.P.O, CHAPPRAPADAVU,
TALIPARAMABA, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670581
12 A.RAMACHANDRAN @ RAMAN
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.GOVINDAN, PUTHALATH POYIL, KIZHAKKE KADIRUR,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670642
13 VIJESH @ MUTHU
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.BHASKARAN, KANATHIL HOUSE, UKKAS MOTTA, KADIRUR,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670642
14 VIJESH @ GEORGEKUTTI
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.VALSAN, VALIYAPARAMBATH, UKKAS MOTTA,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670642
15 MANOJ
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.RAGHAVAN, KANNOTH HOUSE, BRAHMAVU MUKKU,
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& :: 7 ::
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
KIZHAKKE KADIRUR THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670642
16 SHABITH
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.GOVINDAN, MEETHALE VALIYOTH, BRHAMAVU MUKKU,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670642
17 NITH @ NIJITH
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.RAJAN, VAKKUMMAL, AMBILAD.P.O, NIRMALAGIRI,
KUTHUPARAMBA, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670701
18 SIRAJ
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.KHADAR, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, NARAVOOR.P.O,
KUTHUPARAMBA, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670671
19 P.P.RAHIM @ JAGA RAHIM
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED, POOLAKKANDI PARAMBA, AMBILAD.P.O,
NOW RESIDING AT C.K.QUARTERS, 24/393, KUTHUPARAMBA
MUNICIPALITY, PAZHAYANIRATH, PIN - 670701
BY ADV.SRI.D.ARUN BOSE
BY ADV.SRI.K.VISWAN
RESPONDENT/STATE:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/SCB,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.), CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION (CBI)
BY SRI.P.SREEKUMAR, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF
INDIA
BY SRI.SREELAL N. WARRIER, SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, CBI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.04.2026, ALONG WITH CRL.R.P.NO.293 OF 2023 AND
CRL.M.C.NO.3238 OF 2023, THE COURT ON 10.04.2026 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& :: 8 ::
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2026/20TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.M.C.NO.3238 OF 2023
CRIME NO.780/2014 OF KATHIRUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2023 IN CRMP.NO.2979/2022
IN S.C.NO.343 OF 2017 OF ADDITIONAL SPECIAL SESSIONS COURT
(SPE/CBI CASES)-III, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.20 TO 25:
1 T.I.MADHUSOODHANAN
AGED 53 YEARS
'NIRANJANA' MAVICHERY, PAYYANNUR AMSOM, DESOM,
P.O.PAYYANNUR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670307
2 RIJESH @ RIJU
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.BALAN, KUNNUMAL HOUSE, EAST KADIRUR, THALASSERY
TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670642.
3 MAHESH
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.NANU, KATTIAL MEETHAL HOUSE, EAST KADIRUR,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670642
4 SUNIL KUMAR @ SUNOOTTY
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.KORAN, KULAPPURATHUKANDI HOUSE, EAST KADIRUR,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670642
5 SAJILESH V.P
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, MANGALASSERY HOUSE,
CHUNDAGAPOYIL, KADIRUR, THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670642
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& :: 9 ::
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
6 P.JAYARAJAN
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, 'KAIRALI', POOKODU.P.O,
PATTIYAM AMSOM, KONGATTA DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670643
BY ADV.SRI.D.ARUN BOSE
BY ADV.SRI.K.VISWAN
RESPONDENT/STATE:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBI/SCB,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.), CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION (CBI)
BY SRI.P.SREEKUMAR, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF
INDIA
BY SRI.SREELAL N. WARRIER, SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, CBI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.04.2026, ALONG WITH CRL.R.P.NO.293 OF 2023 AND
CRL.M.C.NO.3117 OF 2023, THE COURT ON 10.04.2026 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& : : 10 : :
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
"C.R."
ORDER
Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
As all these three cases involve a common issue, they are taken up
together for consideration and disposed by this common order.
2. Crl.R.P.No.293 of 2023 is preferred against an order dated
21.03.2023 in S.C.No.343 of 2017 of the Additional Special Sessions
Judge (SPE/CBI)-III), Ernakulam. By the said order, an application for
discharge preferred by the petitioners under Section 227 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C“] was
dismissed by the trial court. Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 and 3238 of 2023 impugn
a common order dated 09.03.2023 in Crl.M.P.Nos.2978 and 2979 of 2022
in S.C.No.343 of 2017 before the Additional Special Sessions Judge
(SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam. By the common order aforesaid, applications
preferred by the petitioners under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C seeking
production of files in connection with the sanction granted for
prosecuting them for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act [hereinafter referred to as the “UAPA”] stood rejected by the trial
court.
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& : : 11 : :
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these cases are as
follows:
The petitioners are accused nos.1 to 25 in S.C.No.343 of 2017 on
the file of the Additional Special Sessions Judge (SPE/CBI)-III,
Ernakulam. They are charged for the offences under Sections 120B read
with Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 read with Sections 302, 201, 202, 212,
324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and Section 16(a) read with
15(1)(a)(i) and Section 19 of the UAPA, Sections 3 and 5 of Explosive
Substances Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The case of the
prosecution was that on 01.09.2014, one Elamthottathil Manoj was
murdered and another person, namely, Pramod was seriously injured in
an attack allegedly committed by the petitioners. Crime No.780 of 2014
was registered by the Kadirur Police Station alleging commission of
offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 read with Section
149 of IPC; under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosives Substances Act and
also under Section 13(1)(a) of the UAPA. Subsequently, a report was
filed deleting Section 13(1)(a) of UAPA and adding Section 16(1)(a) of
UAPA. The investigation in the matter was initially transferred from the
local police to the Crime Branch on the same day as the incident and
later the matter was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation
[CBI] which re-registered the crime as R.C.No.10(S)/2014-
CBI/SCB/TVPM on 28.10.2014. After completing the investigation, a
final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. was filed against revision
petitioners/accused nos.1 to 19 on 06.03.2015 before the Sessions Court,
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& : : 12 : :
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
Thalassery. The final report cited 202 witnesses, 64 documents and
identified 53 material objects. The final report also stated that the
investigation will be continued to identify and apprehend the remaining
accused. The learned Sessions Judge, Thalassery took cognizance of the
offence under Section 120B read with Sections 143, 147, 148, 201, 202,
212, 324, 307, 302, 149 IPC; Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act, Section 16(a) read with Section 15(1)(a)(i) and Section
19 of UAPA and Section 27 of Arms Act. The case was numbered as
S.C.No.200 of 2015 before the Sessions Court Thalassery. The CBI
thereafter filed a supplementary final report on 29.08.2017 against
accused nos.20 to 25 alleging commission of offence under Section 120B
read with Sections 143, 147, 148, 201, 202, 212, 324, 307, 302, 149,
Section 18 read with Section 15(1)(a)(i) and 16(A) and Section 19 of
UAPA, Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 27
of Arms Act. In the said report, the CBI cited 70 additional witnesses
and produced 60 documents and one material object. In the meanwhile,
as per an order dated 07.03.2017 of the Supreme Court in Crl.Appeal
No.519 of 2017, the case was transferred to the Additional Special
Sessions Judge (SPE/CBI)-III, Ernakulam. Accused nos.3, 11 and 12
were enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 18.06.2015 in
Crl.A.Nos.346, 347 and 383 of 2015. Accused no.18 was granted bail by
the Sessions Court, Thalassery vide order dated 08.07.2015 in
Crl.M.P.No.2509 of 2015 as there was no material against him. Accused
no.20 was granted bail by the Sessions Court, Thalassery vide order
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& : : 13 : :
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
dated 11.08.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.6261 of 2015. Accused no.21 was
granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.10.2015 in Crl.A.No.846 of
2015. Accused nos.22 to 24 were enlarged on bail by this Court by order
dated 19.01.2016 in Crl.A.No.50 of 2016. Accused no.25 was granted
bail by the Sessions Court, Thalassery vide order dated 23.03.2016 in
CrI.M.C.No.500 of 2016. Accused nos.1, 2, 4 to 10, 13 to 17 and 19 were
granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.02.2021 in B.A.No.997 of
2019, after nearly 7 years of incarceration.
4. It is significant to note that the petitioners had earlier filed
applications under Section 91 of Cr.P.C seeking the production of certain
files by the Union Government to establish that the procedure required
for obtaining sanction before taking cognizance of the offences under the
UAPA, had not been followed by the authorities concerned. The said
applications were filed at a point in time when the petitioners, being
aggrieved by the orders passed by the trial court taking cognizance of
the case against them under the UAPA, based on the sanction orders
issued by the Central Government, had approached this Court through
writ petitions – W.P.(C).No.25403 of 2017 and W.P.(C).No.31229 of 2017,
seeking to quash the sanction order and challenging the cognizance
taken by the trial court. There was a further prayer in those writ
petitions for a declaration that the competent authority to grant sanction
for prosecution of the petitioners was not the Union of India but the
Government of Kerala. The writ petitions were however dismissed by a
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& : : 14 : :
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
learned Single Judge by a judgment dated 15.03.2018, and the appeals
preferred by the petitioners as W.A.Nos.765 and 766 of 2018 against the
said judgment of the learned Single Judge was also dismissed by a
Division Bench of this Court. At the time of dismissing the writ appeals,
the Division Bench found as follows at paragraphs 35 to 45 of the
impugned judgment:
“35. In our considered view, a reading of the above provisions
together would make it clear that it is not the place of occurrence of the
crime that matters, but what matters is the agency conducting the
investigation under the control of the Central Government and admittedly,
in the instant case the investigation is conducted by an agency under the
control of the Central Government and the offences under Sections 15 and
16 of the UAPA is incorporated in the final report, and therefore, the
sanction issued by the Central Government is a validly constituted one. It is
also clear that merely because the central agency conducts an investigation
into any offence within the State, it is never under the control of the state
government especially due to the fact there is no enabling provision under
any one the acts discussed above to do so. Which thus means the central
agency conducting the investigation is always under the control of the
Central Government and that power under any circumstances is not
conferred on the State Government even while conducting an investigation
within a state. Moreover, the UAPA, 1967 is an Act also to provide for the
more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and
associations and for dealing with terrorist activities and for matters
connected therewith. The statement of objects and reasons shows that it
was pursuant to the acceptance by Government of a unanimous
recommendation for the Committee on National Integration and
Regionalism appointed by the National Integration Council, the Constitution
(Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 was enacted empowering the Parliament
to impose, by law, reasonable restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty
and integrity of India, on (i) Freedom of speech and expression; (ii) Right to
assemble peaceably and without arms; and (iii) Right to form associations or
unions.
36. The Act was amended in 2004 and the objects and reasons
thereto shows that the Central Government have been concerned with the
manner in which the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002
were being grossly misused in the past two years and it was felt necessary
to repeal the Act. It was with the objective, the amendment Ordinance was
promulgated on 21.09.2004 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Amendment Bill, 2004 replaced the Ordinance, also with the objective to
make further provisions with the aim of strengthening the arrangements for
speedy investigation, prosecution, and trial of cases related to terrorism
related offences, while, at the same time, ensuring against any possible
misuse of such provisions. That apart, in our view, Section 45 makes it clear
that sanction for prosecution under sub-section (1) of Section 45 would be
given after considering the report of such authority appointed by the
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& : : 15 : :
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
Central Government, or as the case may be, the State Government, and it
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. Therefore, it is taking note of the objects and reasons of the
provisions of UAPA, such a safety measure is incorporated under Section 45,
which thus means, an independent authority appointed by the Central
Government, makes an independent review of the evidence gathered in the
course of investigation and make a recommendation to the Central
Government or the State Government as to whether a sanction is to be
granted or not. Therefore, sufficient safety vault is provided to ensure that
unnecessarily the provisions of Act, 1967 is not incorporated in any final
report submitted by an investigating agency and therefore prima facie we
will have to presume that the actions were done by the respective
authorities in accordance with law until otherwise proved by the appellants.
37. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, has taken us
through the sanction order to contend and canvas that an independent
authority has gone through the materials of the investigation conducted and
submitted a report to the Central Government and it was accordingly,
sanction was issued.
38. We have gone through the sanction orders issued by the
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs against the accused persons.
On a perusal of the sanction order, it is evident and clear that the authority
had occasion to go through the investigation conducted by the CBI and then
granted sanction. The validity of the sanction order has to be looked into by
the Special Court trying the case in question and definitely, the appellants
are vested with sufficient liberty to question the veracity and legality of the
sanction order issued by the Government of India.
39. Another contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for
the appellants is relying upon the Rules 3 and 4 of Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008,
which read thus:
“3. Time limit for making a recommendation by the Authority.-
The Authority shall, under sub-section (2) of section 45 of the Act,
make its report containing the recommendations to the Central
Government [or, as the case may be, the State Government] within
seven working days of the receipt of the evidence gathered by the
investigating officer under the Code.
4. Time limit for sanction of prosecution.- The Central Government
or, as the case may be, the State Government shall, under sub-section
(2) of section 45 of the Act, take a decision regarding sanction for
prosecution within seven working days after receipt of the
recommendations of the Authority.”
40. Relying upon the above said rules, the specific contention
advanced was that from the order of sanction, it is not clear that the time
period prescribed therein was followed by the authorities concerned, as well
as the Central Government. It is also pointed out that the provisions of the
UAPA are affecting the rights and liberty of the individuals and due to its
imperative nature, it is a mandatory requirement. Therefore, when the time
period stipulated under Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules, 2008 is not reflected in
the sanction order and that is a reason to think that there is no proper
sanction and to hold that the sanction is bad, enabling the appellants to
secure bail against the other offences alleged against them. In our view,
even going by the contentions advanced by the appellants, it is clear that
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& : : 16 : :
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
the issue with respect to the time period prescribed even if a mandatory
requirement, is shrouded in facts, which could only be deciphered by a fact
finding authority and in this case, the Special Court, wherein the final
report is submitted against the appellants. Therefore, we are unable to
consider the contentions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellants in that regard also. (emphasis supplied).
41. Moreover, we have gone through the final report submitted by
the CBI, wherein allegations are made against the accused persons,
attributing various offences. It was also contended that there are no
allegations made against accused Nos.5 to 10, 14 and 15, to make them
liable for the offences under UAPA, that only with the aid of Section 149 of
the IPC they are roped in, and a reference to Section 40 of the IPC makes it
abundantly clear that since an offence under Section 149 of the IPC is not
incorporated therein it cannot be invoked and there is no enabling provision
under the UAPA to do so also unlike in other special enactments . Therefore,
according to the learned Senior Counsel, the said appellants are not liable
to be proceeded under the provisions of UAPA, since no allegations are
forthcoming from the final report so as to rope in such persons under the
provisions of UAPA.
42. On the other hand, learned counsel for the CBI submitted that
Section 40 of the IPC takes care of Section 141 and without Section 141,
Section 149 of the IPC has no role to play. Section 141 of the IPC deals with
unlawful assembly. It specifies that an assembly of five or more persons is
designated as “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons
composing that assembly is,-
First.- xx xxxx xxxxx
Second.- To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
Third.- To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence;
or
Fourth.- By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any
person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any
person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or
other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to
enforce any right or supposed right; or
Fifth.- xx xxx xxxx.
43. Section 149 of the IPC dealing with unlawful assembly and
guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object, stipulates that
if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly, in
prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members
of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that
object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a
member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
44. We find force in the above said contention advanced by the
learned counsel for the CBI and are of the opinion that since Section 141 of
the IPC is incorporated in Section 40 of IPC, without Section 141 of the IPC,
there can be no unlawful assembly and the guilt of the offence under
Section 149. Moreover, Section 15 of the UAPA under Chapter IV dealing
with punishment for terrorist activities comprehends various manifestations
in the Terrorist act, which reads thus:
“15. Terrorist Act.–
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& : : 17 : :
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
(1) Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten
the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India
or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or
any section of the people in India or in any foreign country,–
(a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or
inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or
poisonous or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other
substances (whether biological radioactive, nuclear or otherwise) of a
hazardous nature or by any other means of whatever nature to cause or
likely to cause–
(i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or
(ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property; or
(iii) disruption of any supplies or services essential to
the life of the community in India or in any foreign country; or
xx xx xxx xxxx”
45. Therefore, on a reading of the said provision also, it is clear that
it is not only that act contemplated under Section 15(1) alone, which
enables an investigating agency to attribute the offences under the UAPA
against the persons who are in the assembly. Anyhow, we are not finally
concluding anything on those aspects, since if we traverse too much
through the same, it is likely to affect the defense of the appellants at the
trial stage in that regard. But we only intended to say that merely because
Section 149 of the IPC is not incorporated under Section 40 of the IPC, that
will not disable the investigating agency to rope in other persons who were
in the assembly under the UAPA, and we are constrained to say so, so as to
arrive at conclusions to meet up with the points raised in the appeals and
canvassed at the time of hearing.”
Thereafter, the Division Bench concluded as follows:
“In the light of the discussion made above, we do not find any
jurisdictional error or legal infirmity on the part of the learned single Judge,
in exercising the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Therefore, upshot of the above discussion is that the appeals are
liable to be dismissed and accordingly, we do so. However, we make it clear
that the trial court shall not be influenced by the findings and observations
made in the judgments rendered by the learned single Judge, and us, as
above, in considering any issues at any stage of the proceedings, in
accordance with law.” (emphasis supplied).
5. It was presumably by acting on the liberty reserved by the
Division Bench as above, that the petitioners deemed it apposite to file
fresh applications under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial court
seeking the production of documents to substantiate their contention
that sanction for prosecution had not been properly obtained by the
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& : : 18 : :
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
Union Government for offences under the UAPA. This was more so
because the applications under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. filed by them
earlier, during the pendency of the writ petitions referred above, were
dismissed by the trial court based on the judgment of the learned Single
Judge in the writ petitions. At any rate, the trial court took note of the
earlier proceedings before this Court and proceeded to dismiss even the
subsequent applications preferred by the petitioners under Section 91 of
the Cr.P.C. by holding that the validity of the sanction order could only be
considered at the time of trial of the criminal proceedings initiated
against the petitioners, and that the same could not be considered at the
time of disposing the discharge applications. It is impugning the said
common order of the trial court dismissing the subsequent applications
under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. that the petitioners are before us through
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 and 3238 of 2023.
6. As a matter of fact, Crl.R.P.No.293 of 2023 that was preferred
challenging the order of the trial court dismissing the application for
discharge preferred by the petitioners under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.
had come up for hearing before us as a matter to be considered by a
Division Bench of this Court. It was at that time that a mention was
made of the pendency of the Crl.M.Cs referred above before a learned
Single Judge of this Court. On noticing that the issues involved in the
Crl.R.P. and the Crl.M.Cs were connected, we deemed it appropriate to
call for the Crl.MCs also before this Bench to be heard along with the
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& : : 19 : :
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
Crl.R.P. After obtaining the orders of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the
Crl.M.Cs were also tagged along with the Crl.R.P.
7. We have heard Sri.D.Arun Bose and Sri.K.Viswan, the learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri.K.P.Satheesan, the learned senior
counsel for the respondent CBI. We have also heard Sri.P.Sreekumar, the
learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India.
8. We might emphasis herein that the sole reason for us to tag the
Crl.M.Cs along with the Crl.R.P. was the submission made on behalf of
the petitioners in the Crl.R.P. that their grievance against the order of
dismissal of the discharge applications that was impugned in the Crl.R.P.
was primarily on the ground that the said order had been passed without
examining the validity of the sanction orders passed according sanction
for prosecution of the petitioners for offences under the UAPA. Since the
validity of the sanction orders was also the subject matter of challenge in
the Crl.M.Cs that were preferred impugning the order of the trial court
dismissing petitions filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for production
of documents, it was felt that if the petitioners were to succeed in the
Crl.M.Cs by pointing to any inherent defect in the sanction orders that
rendered those orders a nullity in law, then the Crl.R.P. would also have
to be allowed since the petitioners would have to be discharged vis-a-vis
the offences under the UAPA with which they were charged. We note,
however, that the Crl.M.Cs challenging the order of dismissal of the
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& : : 20 : :
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
applications preferred under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. ought not to have
been entertained by this Court at first instance since the applications
filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the petitioners were in
the immediate aftermath of the earlier round of litigation, wherein, a
Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.765 and 766 of 2018 had clearly
found that the aspect of validity of the sanction orders could be gone into
only during the trial of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
It is also significant that the charges against the petitioners including
under the UAPA had already been framed immediately after the dismissal
of the earlier round of Section 91 applications preferred by them before
the trial court. In other words, the Crl.M.Cs which effectively impugn
the common order of the trial court, dismissing the subsequent
applications filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. were not maintainable
since they virtually amounted to re-agitating issues that had already
been concluded through the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
in the writ appeals aforementioned.
9. Notwithstanding the above, since the Crl.M.Cs had already
been admitted by this Court and were pending since 2023, and further,
the contention of the petitioners was with regard to an aspect that went
into the root of the matter, namely, whether, through non-adherence of
the procedure contemplated under the UAPA read with the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution)
Rules, 2008 [2008 Rules], the sanction orders passed by the Central
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& : : 21 : :
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
Government were void ab initio, we called for the files with regard to the
sanction orders dated 07.04.2015 and 09.05.2016 before this Court by
passing a short order dated 02.03.2026 that reads as follows:
“In these three cases, the only issue that needs to be considered is
whether while issuing the sanction orders dated 07.04.2015 (Crl.M.C.
No.3117 of 2023), and 09.05.2016 (Crl.MC No.3238 of 2023), the Central
Government, which had granted the sanction for prosecution of the
petitioners, inter alia, under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, had complied with the procedure contemplated under
Section 45(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act read with Rules 3
and 4 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction
of Prosecution) Rules, 2008.
2. We find that while the sanction orders produced before us as
above mentioned state that the Central Government had followed the
procedure contemplated under Rules 3 and 4 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008,
the details with regard to the committee that went through the investigation
report for the purposes of recommending prosecution to the Central
Government is clearly referred to only in one of the sanction orders viz. in
the order dated 09.05.2016. Such details are absent in the sanction order
dated 07.04.2015. We, therefore, direct the Central Government to make
available the files with regard to the sanction orders passed in both the
cases (sanction orders dated 07.04.2015 and 09.05.2016) before this Court
by the next date of posting.
Post on 10.03.2026.”
10. We have since perused the files made available before us, as
also the sanction orders dated 07.04.2015 and 09.05.2016, to verify
whether the time limits specified under Rules 3 and 4 of the 2008 Rules
had been strictly adhered to while passing the sanction orders ? We find
from a perusal of the said files that while in the case of the sanction
order dated 09.05.2016, there is no dispute that the time limits were
adhered to as indicated in the sanction order itself, in the case of the
sanction order dated 07.04.2015, the letter issued from the Nodal
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& : : 22 : :
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
Ministry of the Central Government to the Advisory Committee
constituted under Section 45(2) of the UAPA was on 13.03.2015. The
recommendation by the Advisory Committee to the Central Government
was on 25.03.2015. The sanction order by the Central Government was
on 07.04.2015. The calendar for the year 2015 shows that between
13.03.2015 and 25.03.2015, there were only seven working days, namely,
16.03.2015 to 20.03.2015, 23.03.2015 and 24.03.2015. Similarly,
between 25.03.2015 and 07.04.2015, there were only eight working
days, namely, 26.03.2015, 27.03.2015, 30.03.2015, 31.03.2015,
01.04.2015, 02.04.2015, 03.04.2015 and 06.04.2015. Thus, if the
reckoning of seven working days is as envisaged under the General
Clauses Act by excluding the first day from the computation, the time
limits envisaged under Rules 3 and 4 of the 2008 Rules appear to have
been adhered to by the Central Government. Prima facie, therefore, we
find no illegality with regard to adherence to time limits that would
vitiate the sanction orders in the instant case. That apart, since the
Division Bench of this Court had, on an earlier occasion, already clarified
that any other aspect impinging upon the validity of the sanction orders
had to be considered by the trial court at the time of trial of the case
against the petitioners, we do not deem it necessary to interfere with the
orders of the trial court impugned in the Crl.M.Cs aforementioned.
11. As far as the Crl.R.P. before us is concerned, as already noted,
the fundamental premise informing the challenge to the impugned order
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& : : 23 : :
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
of the trial court, that dismissed the applications for discharge under
Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., is that the validity of the sanction orders have
not been considered by the trial court at the time of disposing the
discharge applications. In the light of our prima facie findings with
regard to the adherence of the sanction orders to the time limits
specified in the UAPA, read with the 2008 Rules, we do not find any
reason to interfere with the impugned order of the trial court in the
Crl.R.P. as well.
The Crl.R.P. and Crl.M.Cs are dismissed as above, without
prejudice to the right of the petitioners to challenge the validity of the
sanction orders at the time of trial, on all available grounds.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGESd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
prp/
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& : : 24 : :
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET NO.293 OF 2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE - I A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
06.03.2015
ANNEXURE - II TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY FINAL REPORT
DATED 29.08.2017
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& : : 25 : :
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
APPENDIX OF CRL.M.C.NO.3117 OF 2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE - I THE TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER DATED
07.04.2015
ANNEXURE - II A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS FILED UNDER SECTION 91 OF CR.P.C
ANNEXURE - III A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PROSECUTION IN CRL.M.P.NO.2978 OF 2022
ANNEXURE - IV CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN
CRL.M.P.NO.2978 OF 2022 DATED 09.03.2023
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.03.2023 IN SC
343/2017 OF THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL SESSIONS
JUDGE (SPE/CBI III), KOCHI.
ANNEXURE R1(b) TRUE COPY OF CHARGES DATED 30.03.2023 FRAMED
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY THE ADDITIONAL
SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE (SPE/CBI III)
ERNAKULAM, IN SC 343/2017.
ANNEXURE R1(c) TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS AS CRL.MP NO.273/2018 IN SC
343/2017 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL
SESSIONS JUDGE (SPE/CBI III) ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE R1(d) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.06.2018 IN CRL MP
273/2018 IN SC 343/2017 OF THE ADDITIONAL
SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE (SPE/CBI III),
ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE R1(e) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 15.03.2018 IN WPC
NO.25403/2017
ANNEXURE R1(f) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 5.1.2021 IN WA
NO.756/2018 AND WA NO.766/2018
Crl.R.P..No.293/23
& : : 26 : :
Crl.M.C.Nos.3117 & 3238/23
2026:KER:32073
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO.3238 OF 2023
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
Annexure - I THE TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER DATED
09.05.2016
Annexure - II A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS AS CRL.M.P.NO.2979/2022 FILED
UNDER SECTION 91 OF CR.P.C
Annexure - III A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILE BY THE
PROSECUTION IN CRL.M.P.NO.2979 OF 2022
Annexure - IV CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN
CRIL.M.P.NO.2979 OF 2022 DATED 09.03.2023
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.3.2023 IN SC
NO.343/2017 OF THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL
SESSIONS JUDGE (SPE/CBI III), ERNAKULAM
ANNEXURE R1(b) TRUE COPY OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINS THE
PETITIONERS IN SC 343/2017 DATED 30.03.2023
BY THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPE/CBI III), ERNAKULAM
ANNEXURE R1(c) TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS AS CRL.M.P.NO.273/2018 IN SC NO
343/2017 OF THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL SESSIONS
JUDGE (SPE/CBI III), ERNAKULAM
ANNEXURE R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.6.2018 IN
CRL.M.P.273/2018 IN S.C.343/2017 OF THE
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE (SPE/CBI
III), ERNAKULAM
ANNEXURE R1(e) TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 05.01.2021 IN
W.A.NO.765/2018 AND W.A.NO.766/2018
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE