Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M.JOSEPH, JJ.
PRADEEP RAM – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 816-817 OF 2019 (arising out of SLP(CRL.) Nos.10051-10052 of 2018)
Decided On : 01-07-2019
(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 437(5) and 439(2) - A person on bail - Subsequently new and serious offences are added in the case - Court can direct to arrest him and commit him to custody - Not necessary to cancel the bail - However, investigating authorities itself may not arrest the accused and need to obtain an order from the Court which has released the accused on the bail - Instantly, appellant already in custody in another case -After adding new offences in the case in which the appellant was on bail, investing agency prayed for production warrant - Appellant was produced in court when the court ordered the remand - No error - Principles laid down. (Para 21, 25, 27, 28, 29)
(b) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 6(5) r/w section 8 - Offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 added in case Crime No.02/2016 after investigation and framing of charge sheet - Earlier investigating agency having no occasion to investigate offences under Act 1967 - Such offences are schedule offence under the Act 2008 - Central Government directing NIA to investigate such offence - Held, NIA was competent to investigate. (Para 41, 42)
(c) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 6(6) r/w section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - State police prohibited from investigating scheduled offences - Could be investigated only by NIA - Held, FIR re-registered by NIA cannot be said to be second FIR. (Para 43)
(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173 - Court can direct further investigation even after filing of charge sheet - Instantly offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 being added much after filing of charge sheet in case Crime No.02/2016, it was open to police to conduct further investigation - (Para 44)
(e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167 and 309 - Application of section 167 or 309 depends on stages of trial - Section 167(2) is attracted where cognizance has not been taken - On the other hand, Section 309(2) is attracted only after cognizance has been taken - Instantly accused already in custody - He was produced before court under production warrant and then remanded - Section 309(2) applies and not section 167. (Para 56, 57, 58, 62)
(f) Administration of justice - The Special Judge, in remand order not specifying section 167 of 309 of CrPC - he has power to remand u/s 309(2) - When the Court has power to pass a particular order, non-mention of provision of law or wrong mention of provision of law is inconsequential - As the special Judge could have exercised power only u/s 309(2), the remand order has to be treated as u/s 309(2) - No illegality in remand order. (Para 65)
Facts of the case:
The appellant and others were charged u/s 414, 384, 386, 387, 120-B I.P.C.; Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35, Arms Act; Section 17(1) and (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Offences under Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were later added. NIA was entrusted with investigation and appellant was remanded to jjudicial custody on a prayer by NIA.
A Writ Petition (Crl.) No.277 of 2018 was filed by the appellant praying for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Special NIA Case No.03 of 2018 and Cr. Misc. case for quashing the order dated 25.06.2018 remanding the appellant to the judicial custody by order of the Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, NIA.
The High Court dismissed both the applications.
Finding of the Court:
There is no illegality in the remand order.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Key Points: - The Court holds that after adding new offences to a bailled accused, the court may arrest/remand without cancelling the original bail, under CrPC sections 437(5) and 439(2) (paras 21, 28-29) (!) (!) (!) - It clarifies that re-registration of an FIR under the NIA Act upon Central Government direction is not a "second FIR" but a re-registration to facilitate NIA investigation and supplementary reporting (paras 41-44) (!) (!) (!) - The remand in this case was upheld as under 309(2) CrPC (not 167(2)) since cognizance had already been taken and the accused was produced by production warrant; non-mention of the exact provision is inconsequential when the Court’s power is clear (paras 65-66) (!) (!) - The judgment emphasizes that Section 173(8) CrPC allows ongoing investigation and supplementary reports even after a final report, and that further investigation in respect of scheduled offences is permissible when directed by the Central Government (paras 44-46) (!) (!) (!) - The NIA has jurisdiction to continue investigation and file supplementary charges when scheduled offences are involved, per the Central Government’s order and NIA Act provisions (paras 38-45, 41-43) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
These appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 26.09.2018 of High Court of Jharkhand dismissing the Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 277 of 2018 and Crl. Misc. Petition No. 1114 of 2016 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant.
2. Brief facts of the case and sequence of events are:- 2.1 On 11.01.2016, a First Information Report No. 02/2016, Police Station Tandwa was lodged for offences under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120-B I.P.C. read with Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17(1) and (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Apart from petitioner, there were 11 other named accused. The allegations made against the accused were that applicant by showing fear of extremist of TPC Group recovered levy from the contractors, transporters and coal businessman. It was also alleged that on information received from a co-accused, a search was also conducted in the house of the appellant, during which search, an amount of Rs.57,57,510/- was recovered from the bag kept in the room of the appellant alongwith four mobiles. No satisfactory explanation was given by the appellant.
2.2 By order dated 10.03.2016, the appellant was granted regular bail by the High Court after he was taken into custody. On 10.03.2016, a charge sheet was submitted under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120-B I.P.C. read with Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act and Sections 17(1) and (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra took cognizance of the offences under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120-B I.P.C. read with Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17(1) and (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act on 11.03.2016. A Crl.M.P. No. 1114 of 2016 was filed by the appellant on 10.05.2016 in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 11.03.2016. On 19.09.2016, the Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges against the appellant under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387, 120-B I.P.C. Charges were also framed under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35 of the Arms Act as well as under Section 17(1) and (2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The High Court passed an interim order on 15.12.2016 staying the further proceedings in Tandwa P.S. Case No.2/2016.
2.3 On the prayer made by the Investigating Officer on 09.04.2017, offences under Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were added against the accused. Central Government issued an order dated 13.02.2018 in exercise of power conferred under sub-section 5 of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 suo-moto directing the National Investigation Agency to take up investigation of case F.I.R. No.02/2016, in which Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were added, which were scheduled offences. In pursuance of the order of the Central Government dated 13.02.2018, National Investigation Agency re-registered the First Information Report as FIR No.RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI dated 16.02.2018 under the above noted sections. The appellant being under custody in some other case, request was made on behalf of the National Investigating Agency before the Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi on 22.06.2018 praying for issuance of production warrant. The Special Judge allowed the prayer. Consequently, the appellant was produced from Chatra Jail on 25.06.2018 and was remanded to judicial custody by order of Special Judge dated 25.06.2018.
2.4 A Writ Petition (Crl.) No.277 of 2018 was filed by the appellant praying for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Special NIA Case No.03 of 2018 including the First Information Report being No.RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI. A further prayer was also made for quashing the order dated 25.06.2018 remanding the appellant to the judicial custody by order of the Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi. The High C
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
