As per case facts, the appellant, an alleged associate of a terrorist organization, was accused of creating a company to channel illegal funds. Following an FIR and supplementary chargesheet, he ... was arrested and sanctioned for prosecution. He challenged the sanction and cognizance orders before the High Court, which denied his plea, prompting this appeal. The question arose whether the sanction order was valid, considering alleged violations of statutory timelines and independent review requirements, if the transactions were independent, and if a statutory exemption applied to the appellant. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that sanction validity should be challenged at the earliest opportunity before the Trial Court, with reasons for any delay. It declared that the timelines for sanction under the UAPA Rules are mandatory and must be strictly followed, with this ruling applying prospectively. The requirement for independent review by both recommending and granting authorities is essential. The Court found no violation of misjoinder of charges and stated that the applicability of the statutory exemption is a matter for evidence at trial. The appeal was dismissed.