ORDER Heard Mr. T. Topu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.T. Ete, learned Addl Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The present applicant under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( BNS S ), has been filed seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in Session Case No. 07/2025, pending before the Court of Sessions Judge, Yupia, arising out of Itanagar P.S. Case No. 06/2025 under Sections 147 /149/150 of BNS , R/W Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 25(1) (1B) (a), 27(1) of the ARMS ACT , 1959. 3. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner, being part of an organization under a self-proclaimed named Nationalist Socialist Council for Tani Land (NSCT) was formed under the self-proclaimed Commander- in-Chief, Anthony Doke was involved in collecting arms and undergoing military training in the forest areas with the intend to wage-war against the Government. Based on Social media information, a Suo-moto FIR was lodged by Shri Kengo Dirchi, who is serving as SDPO, Itanagar and it was registered. The matter was investigated into, and upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused person under Sections 147 /149/150 of BNS R/W Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 25(1) (1B) (a), 27(1) of the ARMS ACT , 1959. 4. By filing this criminal petition, the petitioner challenges the continuation of proceedings, particularly under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, on the ground that no prior sanction under Section 45(1) (i) R/W Section 45(2) of the UAPA was obtained at the time of taking cognizance. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in absence of the prosecution sanction against the accused, the learned trial Court could not have taken the cognizance of the offence and proceeded with the trial of the case. 5. In support of his submission, the petitioner places reliance on several decisions including: a. M. Mohan vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626 ; b. Subhashree Das ‘ Mili Panda & Ors., vs. State of Orissa, reported in (2012) 109 AIC 922 . c. Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. & Ors., vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 370 . d. Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2016) 16 SCC 30. c. Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd. & Ors., vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 370 . d. Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2016) 16 SCC 30. e. Subhashree Das ‘ Mili Panda & Ors., vs. State of Orissa, reported in (2012) 109 AIC 922 . f. Jahidul Islam S/O Kajimuddin vs. State of Assam, reported in 2024 Supreme (Gau) 840. g. Rambhai Nathabhai Gadhvi & Ors., vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 744 . 6. Basing on the above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in absence of valid sanction under UAPA , the continuation of trial under the said act is legally untenable. Therefore, he prays for setting aside and quashing of the proceedings of the case. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly concedes that no sanction under Section 45 (1) (i) of the UAPA was obtained before filing the charge-sheet. However, he submits that sanction has been obtained under the ARMS ACT and the trial can still proceed for offence under BNS and ARMS ACT . 8. In support of his submission, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the followings: a. A. Sreenivasa Reddy vs. Rakesh Sharma & Anr., reported in 2023 SCC Online 952. b. H. N. Rishbud & Inder Singh vs. State of Delhi reported in AIR 1955 SC 196. c. Girish Kumar Suneja vs. C.B.I reported in AIR 2017 SC 3620 . 9. I have heard the argument advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties. 10. Section 45(1) & (2) of UAPA provide the mandatory requirement of previous sanction from the Central or State Government, as the case may be, for taking cognizance of offences under UAPA . The Supreme Court has consistently held that absence of sanction vitiate the prosecution under special laws like UAPA and TADA ( Rambhai Nathabhai Gadhvi & Ors., (supra). 11. From the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the records produced before this Court, it is evident that no sanction under Section 45 of UAP Act was obtained prior to the Court taking cognizance of the case. As could be seen from the record, the present case involves multiple offences and sanction is a condition precedent for prosecution under UAP Act. As could be seen from the record, the present case involves multiple offences and sanction is a condition precedent for prosecution under UAP Act. However, in the instant case, admittedly, no prosecution sanction was obtained against the accused prior to the learned court of Sessions taking cognizance under the alleged offence. 12. In view of the settled position of law which has been admitted that no requisite prosecution sanction was obtained under the UAP Act, the proceedings in Session Case No. 07/2025 arising out of Itanagar P.S. Case No. 06/2025, insofar as they relate to Section 13 of UAPA , 1967, are hereby quashed. However, it is made clear, that the proceedings under Sections 147 /149/150 of BNS and Sections 25(1) (1B) (a), 27(1) of the ARMS ACT , 1959, shall continue before the competent authority in accordance with law. 13. Accordingly, the Sessions Court, Yupia, is directed to segregate the trial of the case and proceed against the accused person only in relation to offence for which cognizance can be legally taken. 14. With the above, the petition stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. 15 . With the above, the petition stands disposed of.