Interim Stay on Sedition Charges Does Not Preclude Trial for Distinct Offences Under UAPA and IPC.

The petitioner was implicated in Crime No. 170/2015 following a police search at a co-accused's residence where incriminating booklets allegedly inciting war against the State were recovered.

Charges were framed under Sections 13(1) and 17 of the UAPA and Sections 121A, 123, and 124A of the IPC.

The petitioner challenged the framing of charges, arguing that mandatory procedures under Section 6 of the NIA Act regarding scheduled offences were ignored and that the trial for sedition (Section 124A IPC) must be stayed per Supreme Court directions.

The Trial Court rejected the discharge application on 02.09.2024, leading to this revision.

1. Whether the Trial Court could proceed with framing charges under other sections of the IPC and UAPA while the charge under Section 124A IPC remains in abeyance per Supreme Court orders.

2. Whether the non-compliance with the procedural mandate of Section 6 of the NIA Act and Section 45(2) of the UAPA (regarding sanction) necessitates discharge at the pre-trial stage.

3. Whether the possession of historical/publicly available booklets and a single firearm recovery is sufficient to prima facie satisfy the ingredients of "waging war" or "unlawful activities".

The court applied Section 397/401 of the CrPC regarding the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, which prohibits a "mini-trial" at the stage of framing charges.

It relied on the interim order in S.G. Vombatkere Vs. Union of India, which stayed Section 124A IPC trials but allowed adjudication of other sections if no prejudice is caused.

Regarding "waging war," the court noted the principles in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu, which caution against stretching the definition of Section 121 IPC, while maintaining that "grave suspicion" is the threshold for framing charges under Section 227/228 CrPC.

The court referenced Section 6 of the NIA Act and Section 45(2) of the UAPA concerning procedural safeguards and sanctions.

The High Court observed that while the Supreme Court stayed proceedings under Section 124A IPC, the Trial Court was competent to proceed with grave offences under the UAPA and other IPC sections as long as no prejudice was caused.

On the issue of NIA Act compliance and the validity of government sanction under UAPA, the Court reasoned that these are mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence, which cannot be adjudicated during a discharge hearing.

Regarding the booklets, the Court found that the determination of whether they were merely historical or intended to incite "waging war" is a matter of defense evidence to be tested at trial.

The Court concluded that since the threshold for framing charges is only the existence of "grave suspicion," and the material on record provided a prima facie basis, the Trial Court did not commit a jurisdictional error.

It held that the trial for distinct offences under the UAPA and Sections 121A and 123 of the IPC could proceed despite the stay on Section 124A IPC.

The Trial Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law while keeping the specific charge under Section 124A IPC in abeyance as per the S.G. Vombatkere mandate.