1. FIR registered under IPC — Addition of UAPA offences — Challenge to jurisdiction of Sessions Court and Magistrate to permit addition of offences and grant remand. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 350
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
The State of West Bengal – Appellant
Versus
Jayeeta Das – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(S). 2128 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 7880 of 2023)
Decided On : 18-04-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Until a Special Court is constituted by State Government under sub-Section (1) of Section 22 of NIA Act, in case of registration of any offence punishable under UAPA, Court of Sessions of division in which offence has been committed, would have jurisdiction as conferred by the Act on a Special Court and a fortiori, it would have all powers to follow procedure provided under Chapter IV of NIA Act.
Until a Special Court is constituted by State Government under sub-Section (1) of Section 22 of NIA Act, in case of registration of any offence punishable under UAPA, Court of Sessions of division in which offence has been committed, would have jurisdiction as conferred by the Act on a Special Court and a fortiori, it would have all powers to follow procedure provided under Chapter IV of NIA Act.
Subject
Criminal Law - Jurisdiction and Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Section 43D (5) – National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 – Section 22(1) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 167 – Extension of period of remand – Until a Special Court is constituted by State Government under sub-Section (1) of Section 22, in case of registration of any offence punishable under UAPA, Court of Sessions of division in which offence has been committed, would have jurisdiction as conferred by the Act on a Special Court and a fortiori, it would have all powers to follow procedure provided under Chapter IV of NIA Act – Present case involves investigation by State police and provisions of Section 22 would be applicable insofar as issue of jurisdiction of Court to try offences is concerned – State of West Bengal has so far not exercised power conferred upon it by Section 22 of NIA Act for constituting a Special Court for trial of offences set out in Schedule to NIA Act and hence, Sessions Court within whose jurisdiction, offence took place would be Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court – Order whereby Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court permitted addition of offences under UAPA to the case does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity – To the extent Chief Metropolitan Magistrate extended remand of accused beyond period of 90 days, proceedings were grossly illegal – However, accused never claimed default bail on the ground that charge-sheet had not been filed within extended period as per Section 43D of UAPA – Impugned Judgment passed by Single Judge of Calcutta High Court quashing proceedings to the extent of offences punishable under provisions of UAPA, cannot be sustained and hereby reversed and set aside. (Paras 24, 25, 29, 30, 37 and 38)
Facts of the case:
Points in issue are:
i. Whether court of sessions was entitled to entertain application for extension of period of remand in terms of proviso to Section 43D (5) of UAPA when no special court had been notified by State of West Bengal under Section 22(1) of National Investigating Agency Act, 2008.
ii. Whether petitioner could have been remanded by Magistrate after offences under UAPA had been added.
Findings of Court:
Only academic question left for the Court to examine in such circumstances would be the effect of evidence collected, if any, during this period of so called illegal remand, after 90 days had lapsed from the date of initial remand of the accused and the right of the accused to seek any other legal remedy against such illegal remand. Such issues would have to be raised in appropriate proceedings, i.e. before the trial court at the proper stage.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Ms. Kshitij Singh, Adv. Mr. Sohhom Sau, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R. Mahadevan, Adv. Mr. V. Balaji, Adv. Mr. C. Kannan, Adv. Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Ms. Adviteeya, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Ms. Kshitij Singh, Adv. Mr. Sohhom Sau, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R. Mahadevan, Adv. Mr. V. Balaji, Adv. Mr. C. Kannan, Adv. Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Ms. Adviteeya, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether jurisdiction for UAPA offences lies with a Special Court notified by Central Government or the Sessions Court in the absence of State Government notification. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. Central Government notification under Section 11 NIA Act does not preclude Sessions Court jurisdiction under Section 22(3) NIA Act when State Government has not designated a Special Court. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 )
4. In the absence of a Special Court designated by the State Government under Section 22(1) NIA Act, the Court of Session exercises Special Court jurisdiction under Section 22(3). (Para 23 , 24 , 29 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment quashing the proceedings to the extent of UAPA offences reversed and set aside. (Para 38 , 39 )
6. Does a Sessions Court have jurisdiction over UAPA offences if the State Government has not designated a Special Court?
Yes. Under Section 22(3) of the NIA Act, until a Special Court is designated by the State Government under Section 22(1), the jurisdiction conferred on a Special Court is exercised by the Court of Session of the division where the offence was committed. (Para 23 , 24 , 29 )
7. Does a Special Court constituted by the Central Government under Section 11 of the NIA Act preclude the jurisdiction of a Sessions Court under Section 22(3)?
No. The power of the State Government to designate Special Courts under Section 22(1) is distinct. If the State Government has not exercised this power, the Sessions Court retains jurisdiction regardless of Central Government notifications under Section 11. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
8. Which court is authorized to extend the period of detention beyond 90 days under Section 43D(2) of the UAPA?
The power to extend detention beyond 90 days is vested in the Court as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of UAPA, which includes the jurisdictional Sessions Court or a Special Court, but not the jurisdictional Magistrate. (Para 32 , 34 , 36 )
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
3. The State of West Bengal has approached this Court by way of this appeal for assailing the legality and validity of the judgment dated 11th May, 2023 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.R. No. 3180 of 2022.
Brief Facts:-
4. Based on written complaint dated 1st January, 2022 filed by the SI Raju Debnath, STF Police Station, Kolkata on 28th December, 2021 informing about recovery of an unclaimed black coloured bagpack lying abandoned at Sahid Minar containing some written posters of CPI(Maoist) and some incriminating articles about the activities of CPI(Maoist), FIR No. 01 of 2022 came to be registered at STF Police Station, Kolkata for the offences punishable under Sections 121A, 122, 123, 124A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’).
5. The respondent herein was apprehended on 29th March, 2022 and was produced before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on 30th March, 2022. The Investigating Officer conducted preliminary investigation and thereafter filed an application in the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate praying for addition of offences punishable under Sections 16, 18, 18B, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘UAPA’).
6. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, in turn, forwarded the matter to learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘Chief Judge’) for considering the said application, vide order dated 5th April, 2022.
7. Learned Chief Judge, vide order dated 7th April, 2022 permitted addition of offences under Sections 16, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39 of UAPA in the case and allowed the same to be investigated along with the existing offences for which the FIR had been registered. The Investigating Officer was directed to take the necessary steps before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
8. The respondent filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’) before the High Court of Calcutta on 25th August, 2022 with a prayer to quash the order dated 7th April, 2022 passed by learned Chief Judge, Calcutta and all subsequent orders passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. While the aforesaid petition was pending, the learned Chief Judge, Calcutta passed an order dated 22nd September, 2022 extending the period of detention of accused upto 180 days under Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA and permitted the investigating agency to file charge sheet beyond the period of 90 days but within 180 days.
9. The High Court proceeded to accept the petition vide order dated 11th May, 2023 and quashed the proceedings of the case registered against the respondent to the extent of the offences punishable under the provisions of UAPA, holding that only a Special Court constituted by the Central Government or the State Government as per the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008(hereinafter being referred to as ‘NIA Act’) had the exclusive jurisdiction to try the offences under UAPA. It was further held that as per Section 16 of the NIA Act, the Sessions Court was precluded from taking cognizance of the offences under UAPA and thus the order dated 7th April, 2022 and all subsequent proceedings taken thereunder were without jurisdiction.
10. The aforesaid order dated 11th May, 2023 allowing the petition filed by the respondent is under challenge at the instance of the State of West Bengal in this appeal by special leave.
Submissions on behalf of appellant:-
11. Shri Siddhartha Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the instant case involves investigation and prosecution by the state police and not by the Central Agency, i.e., National Investigation Agency. He urged that the proceedings would be governed by Section 22 of NIA Act and hence the H
