Supreme Court of India· 21 September 2026
Is sanction for prosecution under section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 required only at the stage of cognizance and not when the charge sheet is filed?
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR v. MOMIN MOIUDDIN GULAM HASAN @ MOIN MISTRI
2026 INSC 1021 · SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 12932 OF 2024
Coram: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra · Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Answer
Sanction for prosecution under section 45 of the UAPA is required only at the stage of cognizance and not when the charge sheet is filed.
Yes. Sanction for prosecution under section 45 of the UAPA is required only at the stage of cognizance, not when the charge sheet is filed; grant of sanction is nowhere contemplated under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governing completion of investigation. A charge sheet may therefore be forwarded without a sanction order already in hand. (¶26, 27, 28, 29)
Headnote
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.167(2) — Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.43D — s.45 — Default bail — Sanction for prosecution — Investigation —
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.167(2) — Investigation — Exclusive domain of the police —
Held: The investigation of a crime is the exclusive domain of the police; a court cannot curtail this power or declare an investigation complete except in an exceptional case. The High Court erred in so holding while interfering with the second extension. (¶31, 32)
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.45 — Sanction for prosecution — Stage of cognizance —
Held further: Sanction for prosecution under section 45 of the UAPA is required only at the stage of cognizance, and a charge sheet may be filed without it. Pendency of sanction may still be pleaded as a ground for extension of time. (¶26, 27)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.167(2) proviso — Extension of time — Retrieval of data sufficient —
Held further: Time needed for retrieval of data is by itself sufficient ground for extension of time to file a charge sheet, even where sanction is also sought. The second extension order was valid and the High Court's judgment is set aside. (¶21, 22, 35)
Headnote
You've used your free headnotes this month
The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.
Create my free accountIn the Court's own words
Paragraph 26Section 45 of the UAPA provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under Chapter III without the previous sanction of the Central Government or any officer authorized by the Central Government in this behalf. It further provides that the previous sanction of the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government, is mandatory for taking cognizance of any offence under Chapters IV and VI. In respect of an offence committed against the Government of a foreign country, the previous sanction of the Central Government must be taken before the Court takes cognizance of the offence. Sub-section (2) provides that the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government is required to consider the recommendation made by the Authority appointed by the Central Government or the State Government to make an independent review of the evidence gathered in the course of investigation. Section 45 of the UAPA provides as under:
Paragraph 27There is no doubt and the legal position is very clear that the requirement of producing sanction for prosecution comes at the stage of cognizance and a charge sheet can be forwarded to the Court without a sanction order from the appropriate Government. “Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh Samra @ Jasbir”[^7] and “Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.”[^29] re-affirmed this legal position.
Paragraph 28In “Judgebir Singh alias Jasbir Singh Samra alias Jasbir”[^7] the issue was whether a charge sheet filed without sanction for prosecution is incomplete and the accused person becomes entitled to bail under first proviso to section 167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on expiry of the statutory period for completion of the investigation. This Court held that no right to default bail accrues to the accused person, if the investigation is concluded within the prescribed period and a final report is filed within the stipulated time. This Court further held that the process of obtaining sanction is a separate process and any delay in obtaining sanction for prosecution shall not invalidate the final report. This Court held as under:
Paragraph 29In “Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain”[^29] this Court held that the investigation ends with filing of the charge sheet and whether cognizance is taken or not is not material as far as section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned. This Court held as under:
Acts & Sections
s.167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.43D Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.45 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR v. MOMIN MOIUDDIN GULAM HASAN @ MOIN MISTRI — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →