Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV, VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
Mohammad Bilal S/o Yusuf – Appellant
Versus
Police Sub-Inspector, Panambur Police Station, Mangaluru City – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and legality of arrest under nia act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. absence of notification under nia act does not invalidate remand. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. petitioner’s challenge based on lack of government notification. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. subsequent notifications validate establishment of special court. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. review petition denied; remand order upheld. (Para 14) |
ORDER :
1. The present Review Petition has been filed seeking review of the order passed in WPHC 10/2023. The brief facts are that petitioner had filed writ of Habeas Corpus assailing the jurisdiction of NIA Cases Special Court to entertain the proceedings in which the petitioner was arraigned as accused.
2. The illegality of arrest was challenged on the basis of the order of remand being passed by the Special Court when there was no notification under Section 22 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 ('NIA Act' for short).
3. The Division Bench has disposed of the Habeas Corpus petition while adverting to the specific contention raised by the petitioner herein relating to the absence of the notification under Section 22(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. The Division Bench r
The Government Order from 2012 establishes the NIA Special Court's jurisdiction under Section 22(1) of the NIA Act, negating claims of invalidity due to lack of a specific notification.
Section 22(1) of Act provides that State Government may constitute one or more Special Courts for trial of offences under any or all of enactments specified in Schedule.
An appeal lies from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the High Court both on facts and on law under Section 21 of the N.I.A. Act, 2008.
The main legal point established is that the bail application under the NIA Act is maintainable under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. if the case has not been notified to the Central Government as require....
An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a Special Court's refusal to discharge is not maintainable; remedies are available under Section 21(1) of the NIA Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'interlocutory order' under Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008 and its applicability to the order of framing charge.
Order framing charge or an order altering or refusing to alter charge passed by Special Court under NIA Act, is an interlocutory order not appealable under sub-section (1) of Section 21 of NIA Act.
The court ruled that the ATS could continue its investigation until the NIA officially took over, affirming the validity of the charge-sheet filed by ATS Nanded due to the absence of a designated Spe....
The order framing charges under the NIA Act is classified as an interlocutory order, which is not appealable, thereby reinforcing the legislative intent for expeditious trials.
Bail applications under UAPA must be appealed to a Division Bench under Section 21 of the NIA Act, not maintained before the High Court.
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
