IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna , J.
Sayyed Sohel Torvi - Appellant
Versus
National Investigating Agency Ministry Of Home Affairs (goi) Branch Office Hydrabad Rep. By Their Standing Counsel Office At High Court Complex Opp To Vidhan Sabha Bengaluru - 560 001. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 19019 of 2021 (GM-Res)
Decided On : 30-09-2022
NIA Court Jurisdiction - Transfer of Case - IPC Offences - NIA Act, 2008 - Sections 120B, 143, 145, 147, 188 r/w 34 and 149 of the IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the NIA Act, 2008, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly focusing on Sections 8, 13, 14, and 20 of the NIA Act, Section 18 of the UAPA, and Section 223 of the CrPC. The court interpreted these provisions to determine the jurisdiction of the NIA Court to try IPC offences connected with the scheduled offences under the NIA Act. The court relied on several judgments of the Apex Court, including VIVEK GUPTA v. CBI, ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LIMITED v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT, STATE THROUGH CBI v. JITENDER KUMAR SINGH, and HCL INFOSYSTEM LIMITED v. CBI, to establish that the NIA Court has the jurisdiction to try offences under the IPC if they arise out of the same transaction as the scheduled offences under the NIA Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought transfer of his case from the Special Court for NIA Cases to the Court having jurisdiction to try IPC offences. The case arose from an incident where the petitioner was alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 145, 147, 188 r/w 34 and 149 of the IPC. The Ministry of Home Affairs transferred the case to the NIA, and the petitioner filed an application seeking transfer of the case to the Court having jurisdiction to try general IPC offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the NIA Court has the jurisdiction to try IPC offences connected with the scheduled offences under the NIA Act, based on the provisions of the NIA Act, the UAPA, and the CrPC, as well as the interpretations and precedents established by the Apex Court.
Issues: The main issue before the court was whether the NIA Court is empowered to conduct trial of offences alleged, which are the ones punishable under the IPC as well, in the facts of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the NIA Act, the UAPA, and the CrPC, as well as the precedents set by the Apex Court in similar cases, which established that the NIA Court has the jurisdiction to try IPC offences connected with the scheduled offences under the NIA Act.
Final Decision: The petition seeking transfer of the case from the NIA Court to the jurisdictional Court for IPC offences was dismissed by the court, affirming the jurisdiction of the NIA Court to try IPC offences connected with the scheduled offences under the NIA Act.
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 30-09-2021 passed by the XLIX Additional Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for NIA Cases) at Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.141 of 2021 by which the application filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of his case from the Special Court trying cases under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 ('the Act' for short) to the Court having jurisdiction to try IPC offences is rejected.
2. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, filtering out unnecessary details, are as follows:-
On 11-08-2020 at around 8-45 p.m. it is alleged, that a group of 25 to 30 people gathered in front of Kadugondana Halli ('KG Halli' for short) Police Station and started shouting slogans demanding arrest of one Naveen, nephew of Shri Akhanda Srinivasa Murthy, MLA who had posted certain derogatory message on his face-book account, which had generated such insult to the religious faith to those 25 to 30 people who belonged to a particular religion. At about 8.50 p.m. another group of people under the leadership of one Syed Ikramuddin entered KG Halli Police Station demanding registration of a case against the said Naveen and others. The police accepted the complaint and registered an NCR in the light of a preliminary enquiry being conducted for a crime registered in FIR No.195 of 2020 on the same set of fact by Devarajeevana Halli ('DJ Halli' for short) Police Station on 11.08.2020 itself.
3. The gathering at KG Halli Police Station increased tenfold and the mob alleged to have indulged in certain acts which resulted in registration of FIR against all those who were involved in the untoward incident that happened on that date. The Allegations initially made against several members of the mob including the petitioner were the ones punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 145, 147 and 188 r/w 34 and 149 of the IPC. After registration of crime, it appears that the police while investigating recorded statements of several witnesses. Pending filing of a final report, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India by its order dated 21-09-2020 transferred the case to National Investigation Agency ('NIA' for short) and the NIA conducted fresh investigation or further investigation as the case would be and filed a charge sheet, in which the present petitioner is arrayed as accused No.137 for the offences punishable as afore-quoted.
4. The case does not concern merit of accusations or the facts that led to registration of crime. In the said proceedings before the NIA Court, the petitioner files an application in terms of Section 20 r/w Section 8 of the Act seeking transfer of the case pertaining to him to the Court having jurisdiction to try general IPC offences and that he should not be tried before the NIA Court as there was no allegation that would touch upon the offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ('UAPA' for short) for the NIA Court to get jurisdiction to try non-UAPA offences. The Special Court by its order dated 30-09-2021 rejects the application on the ground that the Court did have power to try the offences both arising out of the IPC and that of UAPA if they arise of the same transaction or the same incident. It is this order that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
5. Heard Sri. Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
6. The learned counsel representing the petitioner taking this Court through the provisions of the Act would contend that the Special Court is created to hear offences under the Act, it can try only offences scheduled thereto. What is alleged against the petitioner is not a scheduled offence under the UAPA or the scheduled offence under the Act and therefore, the case ought to have been transferred to the concerned Court having jurisdiction to try the IPC offences notwithstand
Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India (1993) 3 SCC 609 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 961
Essar Teleholdings Ltd. v. Delhi High Court
HCL INFOSYSTEM LIMITED v. CBI - (2016) 9 SCC 281
KADIRI KUNHAHAMMAD v.STATE OF MADRAS
Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 13 SCC 621 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 766
Sanichar Sahni v. State of Bihar (2009) 7 SCC 198 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 347
State of A.P. v. Kandimalla Subbaiah AIR 1961 SC 1241 : (1961) 2 Cri LJ 302
STATE THROUGH CBI v. JITENDER KUMAR SINGH - (2014) 11 SCC 724
Union of India v. I.C. Lala (1973) 2 SCC 72 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 738 : AIR 1973 SC 2204
The NIA Court has the power to try both IPC and UAPA offences arising from the same transaction, as per the provisions of the NIA Act, UAPA, and CrPC, and established precedents.
Scheduled offences under the U.A.P.A. Act are exclusively triable by Special Courts set up under the N.I.A. Act, and appeals from their judgments, sentences, or orders are to be heard by the Division....
The Special Judge's jurisdiction to try non-PC offences is contingent on PC Act charges being framed; if no charges are present, a Magistrate must preside over those IPC offences.
Where jurisdiction of a court or a tribunal is dependent on existence of a particular state of affairs, that state of affairs may be described as preliminary to, or collateral to merits of issue. The....
In the absence of a designated Special Court under the NIA Act, the jurisdictional Sessions Court has the authority to try scheduled offences under UAPA.
The Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act cannot take direct cognizance of offences under the IPC without prior committal by a Magistrate, aligning with the hierarchy of c....
(1) Simply because of death of Government Servant pending prosecution, prosecution cannot be said to be handicapped in adducing evidence of accumulation of assets disproportionate to known sources of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the power of the Special Court to take cognizance of offences under the Electricity Act without the accused being committed to it for trial, as pro....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.