Judgment : R. Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Special P.P. appearing for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XVIII cum Special Judge, ATS, Ranchi in ATS Court Case No. 1 of 2024 arising out of ATS P. S. Case No. 10 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the application dated 08.05.2024 filed by the prosecution for bringing on record the prosecution sanction under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has been allowed and the learned trial court has also directed the presence of the appellant and others for alteration/addition of charge for making amendment of charge. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a secret information was received by the S.P., ATS that on 20.07.2023 at about 3.00 p.m., the associates of Aman Srivastava gang is coming to Ranchi with a huge amount of cash, which they had collected from the coal traders, contractors, etc. as extortion money. After making a station diary entry, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi was requested to depute a Magistrate and a raiding party was constituted for verification of such information and take necessary action. In course of search, it was noticed that a white coloured Scorpio vehicle was coming at a high speed, which was intercepted and two persons boarded on the vehicle namely Ezaj Ansari and Minku Khan @ Shahriyar were apprehended. Both the persons were searched and mobile phones were recovered from their possession. In course of search of the vehicle, a white coloured bag containing cash was recovered from beneath the back seat of the vehicle. On enquiry, the apprehended persons have disclosed that as per the direction of Zahir Ansari, Firoz Khan, Mahmud @ Nepali and Ravi Sardar, the associate of Ravi Sardar namely, Shankar Bhuiya had given the cash, which was to be handed over to Zahir Ansari and Firoz Khan. It has been alleged that Minku Khan had disclosed that he is working with Firoz Khan and Ezaj Ansari is working with Zahir Ansari and as per their direction, they also work for the gang, whenever directed. The cash recovered was extortion money collected by the Aman Srivastava gang. It has been alleged that Minku Khan had disclosed that he is working with Firoz Khan and Ezaj Ansari is working with Zahir Ansari and as per their direction, they also work for the gang, whenever directed. The cash recovered was extortion money collected by the Aman Srivastava gang. Since the cash recovered was large, the Branch Manager, SBI, Hatia Branch was directed to provide a cash counting machine and on being counted, the recovered cash was found to be to the tune of Rs. 49,83,000/-. The recovered articles including mobiles and cash were seized and both the apprehended persons were taken into custody. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, ATS P.S. Case No. 10 of 2023 was instituted under Sections 385/386/34 IPC and Sections 16, 17, 20 and 21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 07.01.2024 under Sections 385, 386 & 120 (B)/34 of I.P.C. and Sections 16, 17, 20 & 21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Cognizance was taken under Sections 385, 386 & 120(B)/34 of I.P.C. and vide order dated 23.02.2024, charge was framed against the accused under Sections 385, 384/34 of I.P.C. After framing of charge, trial has proceeded and some witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution. The sanction for prosecution under Sections 16, 17, 20 & 21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act has been granted by the Principal Secretary-cum-Law Advisor, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand vide order dated 24.04.2024 as contained in order no. 122/2024-139/J. The prosecution through the Investigating Officer had filed a petition before the learned trial court on 08.05.2024 stating therein that sanction for prosecution under Sections 16, 17, 20 & 21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act has been granted to which a rejoinder application was filed by the defence and vide impugned order dated 21.06.2024 the said application of the prosecution was allowed and direction was given to amend the charge. 5. It has been submitted by Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant that Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act demonstrates that prior sanction is mandatory for taking of cognizance under the Act and sanction shall be given within such time as may be prescribed. 5. It has been submitted by Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant that Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act demonstrates that prior sanction is mandatory for taking of cognizance under the Act and sanction shall be given within such time as may be prescribed. He has referred to Rule 3 & 4 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 enacted under the powers conferred upon under Sections 45 (2) and 52 (2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and which specifies a time frame for grant of sanction and the said provision being mandatory in nature any subsequent recommendation and grant of sanction beyond the prescribed time limit will act as an embargo and therefore, the learned trial court was precluded from allowing the amendment application dated 08.05.2024. 6. Learned Special P. P. has submitted that an Authority under Section 45 (2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act has already been constituted and the recommendation was made by the Authority which was referred back by the Department of Home with some objections and ultimately the recommendation was sent to the Law Department which gave the necessary approval/sanction for prosecution. It has been submitted that the trial is at its fag end as 9 witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution. 7. The impugned order dated 21.06.2024 is in two parts: the first is with respect to allowing the prosecution to bring on record the sanction order and the second is of alteration/addition of charge which is a consequence to the first part of the order. The pre-dominant submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that sanction for prosecution under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act could not have been accorded beyond the statutory period as envisaged under Sections 3 & 4 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008. Mr. Singh has also stressed on the fact that in the remarks column so far as recommendation for sanction for prosecution under Sections 16, 17, 20 & 21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is concerned, the same is blank as per the minutes of the meeting dated 15.02.2024 and the same shows non-application of mind of the Authority. 8. Mr. Singh has also stressed on the fact that in the remarks column so far as recommendation for sanction for prosecution under Sections 16, 17, 20 & 21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is concerned, the same is blank as per the minutes of the meeting dated 15.02.2024 and the same shows non-application of mind of the Authority. 8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to have a glance to Section 45 (1) & (2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the same reads as follows: “ 45. Cognizance of offences .—(1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence— (i) under Chapter III without the previous sanction of the Central Government or any officer authorised by the Central Government in this behalf; (ii) under Chapters IV and VI without the previous sanction of the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government, and 73[if] such offence is committed against the Government of a foreign country without the previous sanction of the Central Government. (2) Sanction for prosecution under sub-section (1) shall be given within such time as may be prescribed only after considering the report of such authority appointed by the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government which 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.” Sub-section 2 of Section 45 of UAP Act prescribes the procedure for grant of sanction and the ‘Authority’ shall make an independent review of the evidence gathered in course of investigation and only then the recommendation has to be made and the said sub-section also makes it mandatory that the sanction must be granted within the prescribed time. The prescribed time has been demarcated in Rule 3 & 4 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 and this Rule has come into existence on account of the power being conferred upon under Sections 45 (2) & 52(2) of the UAP Act. Rule 3 and 4 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 reads as follows: “ 3 . Rule 3 and 4 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 reads as follows: “ 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 maybe, 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 maybe, 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 recommendation of the Authority.” As per Rule 3, the time limit for the Authority to make its report containing the recommendation to the concerned Government shall be within 7 working days of the receipt of the evidence gathered by the Investigating Officer and the decision regarding sanction of prosecution has to be taken by the concerned Government within 7 working days after the receipt of the recommendation of the “Authority”. Sub-section 2 of Section 45 of UAP Act and Rule 3 & 4 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 unequivocally and unerringly accentuates the mandatory nature of the said provisions and there can be no qualms about the same. In the case of “ Fuleshwar Gope Vs. Union of India & others ” reported in 2024 INSC 718 , it has been held as follows: “33. In matters of strict construction, when a timeline is provided, along with the use of the word ‘shall’ and particularly when the same is in the context of a law such as the UAPA, it cannot be considered a mere technicality or formality. It demonstrates clear intention on the part of the Legislature. A compulsion has been imposed, and for compliance with that compulsion, a timeline has been provided. While the legislation is aimed at curbing unlawful activities and practices detrimental to national security and accordingly, provides the authorities of the Government ample power to undertake and complete all procedures and processes permissible under law to that end, at the same time the interest of accused persons must also be safeguarded and protected. While the legislation is aimed at curbing unlawful activities and practices detrimental to national security and accordingly, provides the authorities of the Government ample power to undertake and complete all procedures and processes permissible under law to that end, at the same time the interest of accused persons must also be safeguarded and protected. It is expected of the Executive, in furtherance of the ideal of protection of national security, that it would work with speed and dispatch. The concern expressed by the Bombay High Court is that a strict interpretation of the timeline may defeat the objective of the legislation. While on first blush, such a statement is attractive, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the time granted is only for consideration of the material collected by way of an independent review and then making a recommendation whereafter the sanctioning authority may then consider the materials as well as recommendation to finally, grant or deny the sanction. It is not for the purpose of the investigation itself, which understandably can be a time-consuming process, given the multiple variables involved. There have to be certain limitations within which administrative authorities of the Government can exercise their powers. Without such limitations, power will enter the realm of the unbridled, which needless to state is, antithetical to a democratic society. Timelines in such cases, serve as essential aspects of checks and balances and of course, are unquestionably important. If the view of the Bombay and Jharkhand High Courts is allowed to stand it would be tantamount to the Judicial Wing supplanting its view in place of the legislature which is impermissible in view of the doctrine of separation of powers. We find support for our view in the Constitution Bench decision in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak48, wherein D.A. Desai, J., held as under: “ 18 . It is a well-established cannon of construction that the court should read the section as it is and cannot rewrite it to suit its convenience; nor does any cannon of construction permit the court to read the section in such manner as to render it to some extent otiose.” [See also : Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal49; Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse50*; and Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers51] The legislative intent is clear. Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers51] The legislative intent is clear. Rules made by virtue of statutory powers prescribe both a mandate and a time limit. The same has to be followed. Here itself we may clarify that the conclusion arrived at by us in respect of the strict adherence to the timeline mentioned in Rules 3 & 4 of the 2008, Rules shall not affect any decision of the authorities where the same may or may not have been followed as on date of this judgment. For ample clarity, it is stated that the observations made in this judgment shall apply prospectively.” 9. The conclusion which has been arrived at so far as the point raised in the present appeal is concerned is as follows: “ 51.1 The validity of sanction should be challenged at the earliest instance available, before the Trial Court. If such a challenge is raised at an appellate stage it would be for the person raising the challenge to justify the reasons for bringing the same at a belated stage. Such reasons would have to be considered independently so as to ensure that there is no misuse of the right of challenge with the aim to stall or delay proceedings. 51.2 The timelines mentioned in Rules 3 & 4 of the 2008 Rules are couched in mandatory language and, therefore, have to be strictly followed. This is keeping in view that UAPA being a penal legislation, strict construction must be accorded to it. Timelines imposed by way of statutory Rules are a way to keep a check on executive power which is a necessary position to protect the rights of accused persons. Independent review by both the authority recommending sanction and the authority granting sanction, are necessary aspects of compliance with Section 45 of the UAPA.” 10. We now venture to explore as to whether in the present case, the mandatory time limit as prescribed in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 has been followed or not. The charge-sheet on completion of investigation was submitted on 07.01.2024. We now venture to explore as to whether in the present case, the mandatory time limit as prescribed in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 has been followed or not. The charge-sheet on completion of investigation was submitted on 07.01.2024. As per the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the State, the issue with respect to consideration for recommendation of sanction of prosecution was placed before the Authority on 15.02.2024 and recommendation was made for grant of prosecution sanction on the same day itself, though in the remarks column nothing has been stated and it has remained blank. After receiving such recommendation, the Law Department vide Memo no. 139 dated 24.04.2024 gave necessary approval/sanction for prosecution. 11. The chronological events demonstrated above would indubitably show that the sanction for prosecution for the offences under Sections 16, 17, 20 & 21 of the UAP Act was granted much beyond the stipulated time line as envisaged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008. The learned trial court in its impugned order dated 21.06.2024 has not even entered into arena of the provisions of UAP Act and the Rules of 2008 despite the defence raising such legally sustainable issues with respect to the mandatory requirement of following the time limit for recommendation by the Authority and the consequent grant of sanction for prosecution. The object and purpose of UAP Act and the interest of the society had weighed in the mind of the learned trial court while allowing the application preferred by the prosecution being oblivious of the fact that the very object of the UAP Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 is also to ensure that the time limit prescribed has to be rigorously followed. As held in the case of “ Fuleshwar Gope Vs. Union of India & others ” (supra) …….”UAP being a penal legislation, strict consideration must be accorded to it.” 13. We therefore on the basis of discussions made hereinabove quash and set aside the impugned order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner XVIII cum Special Judge, ATS, Ranchi in ATS Court Case No. 1 of 2024 arising out of ATS P. S. Case No. 10 of 2023 in its entirety. However, the prosecution of the appellant shall continue for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. 14. However, the prosecution of the appellant shall continue for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. 14. This appeal is allowed. 15. Pending I.A., if any stands closed.