SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 860

Supreme Court of India
H.L. GOKHALE & J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.
State of Andhra Pradesh through I.G. National Investigation Agency & Another
Versus
Md. Hussain @ Saleem & Another
Crl.M.P.Nos. 17570 & 17571 of 2013 In (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 7375 of 2012 & 9788 of 2012)
Decided On : 13-09-2013

Headnote:

National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21 - Explosive Substance Act, 1908 - Sections 3,4,5 and 6 - Indian Arms Act - Sections 3,5 and 25 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, - Section 15,16,17, 18, 20 and 23 - Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 - Sections 3- Investigation - Argument - Petitions is that in view of provisions of Section National Investigation Agency Act matters in High Court ought to have been heard by Division Bench and not by Single Judge - Submission made by Additional Solicitor General is based on provision of sub section which is statutory requirement - That being so order passed by High Courts deserve to be set aside and proceedings namely High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Criminal Bail Application Bombay High Court will have to be restored to Division Bench of respective High Courts – Held, In this judgment in State of Gujarat supra Court specifically rejected plea based on Section Code by holding that High Court special statute could not be said to have both appellate and original jurisdiction in respect of same matter - Court observed in Para thereof as follows That apart if argument of counsel for respondents is accepted it would mean that person whose bail has been rejected by Special Court will have two remedies and he can avail any one of them at his sweet will - He may move bail application before High Court Section - Original or concurrent jurisdiction which may be heard by Single Judge or may prefer an appeal sub section which would be heard by Bench of two Judges - Interpret statutory provision in such manner that court can exercise both appellate and original jurisdiction in respect of same matter will lead to an incongruous situation - Contention is therefore fallacious – Petition dismissed

Judgment :-

H.L. Gokhale J.

These Criminal Misc. Petitions have been filed by the applicant for impleadment, and clarification of the common order passed by this Court on 2.8.2013 in (i) SLP (Crl.) No.7375/2012 State of A.P. through I.G. National Investigating Agency Vs. Md. Hussain @ Saleem, and (ii) SLP (Crl.) No.9788/2012 National Investigation Agency Vs. Ravi Dhiren Ghosh. SLP (Crl.) No.7375/2012 arose from the judgment and order dated 7.9.2012 in CRLP No.6562/2012 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. SLP (Crl.) No.9788/2012 arose out of the order passed by the Bombay High Court on Criminal Bail Application No.1063/2012. The relevant part of this order dated 2.8.2013 passed by this Court reads as follows:-

“The only issue raised in these petitions is that in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the matters in the High Court ought to have been heard by a Division Bench, and not by a Single Judge. The submission made by the learned Additional Solicitor General is based on the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 21, which is a statutory requirement. That being so, the order passed by the High Courts deserve to be set aside, and the proceedings, namely, Crl. P.No.6562/2012 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Criminal Bail Application No.1063/2012 in the Bombay High Court, will have to be restored to the Division Bench of the respective High Courts. Ordered accordingly.”

2. The applicant herein is accused No.1 in Special (MCOC) CC No.1/09 pending before the learned NIA and MCOC Court Mumbai. The said case arises out of a bomb blast in Malegaon that occurred on 29.9.2008. A charge-sheet has been filed on 20.1.2009 against the applicant and others, including 3 absconding accused, under Sections 302/307/326/324/427/153-A/120-B of I.P.C., read with Sections 3,4,5 and 6 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908, Sections 3,5 and 25 of Indian Arms Act, 15,16,17, 18, 20 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and Sections 3(1) (i), 3(1) (ii), 3(2), 3(4), and 3(5) of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 (MCOC Act for short), before the Court of Special Judge (MCOCA) Greater Mumbai, Maharashtra. The National Investigation Agency has taken over the investigation of this case, by virtue of an order of the Central Government dated 1.4.2011 passed in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 6(5) of The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act for short).

3. The applicant is in custody and has preferred an application for bail on 23.10.2012, before a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, bearing Criminal Bail Application No.1679 of 2012, under the provisions of Section 21(4) of the MCOC Act r/w Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code for short).

4. It so transpired that during the pendency of this bail application, this Court passed the above referred common order dated 2.8.2013 in SLP (Crl.) No.7375/2012 and SLP (Crl.) No.9788/2012. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing in the matter brought this order to the notice of the learned Single Judge hearing the said Criminal Bail Application, and submitted that in view of the said order dated 2.8.2013 passed by this Court, the said Criminal Bail Application is required to be placed before a Division Bench of the High Court. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted to the High Court that the aforesaid order of this Court has no application to the facts of the case of the applicant. The counsel for the applicant however further submitted that he shall seek necessary clarification with respect to the order passed by this Court. The learned Judge has, therefore, adjourned the hearing of the Criminal Bail Application. It is in these circumstances that the present Criminal Misc. Petitions have been filed seeking impleadment and also the following two prayers:-

(a) allow this application by clarifying/declaring that provisions of Section 21(2) of National Investigation
























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top