New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Monday said that prima facie the judgment of the Bombay High Court is very well reasoned while refusing to stay the acquittal of Prof GN Saibaba and others in the UAPA case in connection with alleged links with Maoists. Additional solicitor general SV Raju, representing the Maharashtra government, pointed out that the state challenging the reversal of a conviction order passed by the trial court against Saibaba and others. However, the bench responded that it has gone through the High Court judgment and it’s a well-reasoned judgment. “The law is that there is always a presumption of innocence. And once there is an order of acquittal, that presumption gets fortified”, said the bench, also comprising justice Sandeep Mehta.
The Maharashtra government sought a stay on the acquittal of Saibaba and others. The bench noted that the state government had moved an application demanding the acquittal order be stayed even though the ASG did not press the plea. “It is unheard that acquittal is stayed. Let’s not leave any loose ends. We don’t want this application to be revived again. We are rejecting your application,” said the apex court.
The apex court also issued notice to Saibaba and others on the state government’s appeal. The bench said that it ought to “honour” a previous order of the Supreme Court when it entertained the state’s appeal and issued certain directions. The apex court said that this matter must wait until after the older criminal appeals had been taken up and made it clear that there was no pressing need to hear it.
“There cannot be any urgency in reversing an order of acquittal”, said the bench, adding that in the ordinary course, it would not have entertained this appeal. “But we are admitting it since on an earlier occasion, we had interfered, and we have to honour that,” said the apex court.
The bench noted that since on an earlier occasion, “this court had interfered...we have to honour the earlier order. Otherwise, we wouldn't normally entertain...”. Justice Gavai said there is no urgency in reversing the order of acquittal. “It's a hard-earned acquittal. How many years has the man spent in jail?”, said the bench. The apex court has granted leave in the matter, saying no urgency in hearing the appeal.