IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.18750 of 1998 SHUKAN SAH, son of Jivachh Sah, resident of Pupri Bazar, Police Station- Pupri District- Sitamarhi .......Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR .......Opposite Party ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Advocate For the State: Mr. Dasharath Mehta, Advocate --------- 3 26-03-2010 Heard the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by order refusing discharge dated 27-3-1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi in G.R. case No. 780/92, Trial No. 78/98 relating to an offence under Section 10/13 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). From the impugned order it appears that a grievance was raised that notification published in the official gazette as required by Section 4 of the Act to show that association of Bajrang Dal and RSS have been declared as Unlawful and the same has been confirmed by the Tribunal was not produced. Through an averment in paragraph 8 of this application which is last paragraph just before prayer portion it has been asserted that Section 17 of the Act bars cognizance of any offence under the Act except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or any officer authorized by the Central Government in this behalf. It has been asserted that there is no such sanction order for prosecution of the petitioner. So far as the first issue on the basis of requirement of Section 4 of the Act is concerned, if challenged, the official 2 gazette may be produced during subsequent proceeding to show that the Tribunal had confirmed the ban as alleged by the prosecution hence at this stage, this court is not inclined to accept the said contention for quashing of the prosecution. So far as the second contention is concerned, there is no denial by the State and nothing has been brought on record to show that there was any sanction for prosecution as required by Section 17 of the Act. In that view of the matter, in the interest of justice the cognizance order passed by the concerned court in relation to case at hand has to be declared as illegal. Accordingly, the cognizance order will stand quashed with a clarification that if the State produces proper sanction order from the competent authority before the court concerned, then it may proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law. This application is allowed to the aforesaid extent. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)