VIVEK CHAUDHARY, MANOJ JAIN
Shahid Yousuf – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency – Respondent
Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
Crl.A. 199/2021 and Crl.M.A. 8720/2021
For the Appellants: Mr. Nitai Hinduja, Ms. Aditi Sarswat and Mr. Jawahar Raja, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Akshai Malik SPP, NIA with Mr. Khawar Saleem, Advs.
Crl.A. 201/2021 and Crl.M.A. 8954/2021
For the Appellants: Mr. Nitai Hinduja, Ms. Aditi Sarswat and Mr. Jawahar Raja, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Akshai Malik SPP, NIA with Mr. Khawar Saleem, Advs.
Crl.A. 369/2022
For the Appellants: Ms. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Warisha Farasat, Ms. Suvarna Swain, Ms. Stuti Rai & Ms. Rupali Samuel, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Akshai Malik (SPP) with Mr. Ayush Agarwal & Mr. Khawar Saleem, Advs. Mr. B. B. Pathak, DSP, NIA.
Crl.A. 27/2023, Crl.M.A. 699/2023, Crl.M.A. 701/2023 and Crl.M.A. 716/2023
For the Appellant: Mr. Kamran Khwaja, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Akshai Malik (SPP) with Mr. Ayush Agarwal & Mr. Khawar Saleem, Advs. Mr. B. B. Pathak, DSP, NIA.
Crl.A. 276/2023 and Crl.M.A. 8212/2023
For the Appellant:Mr. Shariq J. Reyaz, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Akshai Malik (SPP) with Mr. Ayush Agarwal & Mr. Khawar Saleem, Advs. Mr. B. B. Pathak, DSP, NIA.
Crl.A. 379/2023, Crl.M.A. 11874/2023 and Crl.M.A. 14170/2024
For the Appellants: Mr. Anirudh Ramanth & Ms. Tamanna Pankaj, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Akshai Malik (SPP) with Mr. Ayush Agarwal & Mr. Khawar Saleem, Advs. Mr. B. B. Pathak, DSP, NIA.
Crl.A. 479/2022 and Crl.M.A. 25736/2023
For the Appellants: Mr. Aarif Ali Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi Adv. Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Mohd Tauheed Adv. Mr Md. Imran Siddiqui Adv. Mr Mohd Faiz Adv. Ms. Saima Anjum Advs. (Through VC)
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, SPP (NIA) with Mr. Jatin, Mr. Amit Rohila, Advs. with Insp. Ajay Singh Parmar, CIO (NIA)
Crl.A. 679/2022 and Crl.M.A. 27596/2022
For the Appellants: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Sr. Adv. with Mr. MD Imran Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Aarif Ali Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi Adv. Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Mohd Tauheed Adv. Mr Md. Imran Siddiqui Adv. Mr Mohd Faiz Adv. Ms. Saima Anjum Advs. (Through VC)
For the Respondents: Ms. Shilpa Singh, SPP with Ms. Priyam Aggarwal, Advs.
Crl.A. 1065/2023
For the Appellants: Ms. Warisha Farasat, Mr. Anirudh Ramanathan, Ms. Tamanna Pankaj & Ms. Priya Vats, Ms. Suvarna Swain, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, SPP (NIA) with Mr. Jatin, Mr. Amit Rohila, Advs. with Insp. Ajay Singh Parmar, CIO (NIA)
Crl.A. 60/2023
For the Appellants: Mr. Aarif Ali Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi Adv. Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Mohd Tauheed Adv. Mr Md. Imran Siddiqui Adv. Mr Mohd Faiz Adv. Ms. Saima Anjum Advs. (Through VC)
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, SPP (NIA) with Mr. Jatin, Mr. Amit Rohila, Advs. with Insp. Ajay Singh Parmar, CIO (NIA)
Crl.A. 159/2024
For the Appellants: Mr. Anirudh Ramanathan, Ms. Tamanna Pankaj & Ms. Priya Vats, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with Mr. Lalit Luthra, Adv. with SI Vikas Kumar, NR/Spl. Cell, Delhi.
Crl.A. 971/2024 and Crl.M.A. 31541/2024
For the Appellant: Mr. Harsh Bora, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. (SPP) with Ms. Asmita Singh, Ms. Disha Joshi, Ms. Ankita Malkhan & Mr. Shashank Jain, Advs. with SI Avdesh Yadav and SI Lokesh Raghav.
Crl.A. 984/2024 and Crl.M.A. 31986/2024
For the Appellants: Mr. Kartik Venu & Mr. R. Jude Rohit, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. (SPP) with Ms. Asmita Singh, Ms. Disha Joshi, Ms. Ankita Malkhan & Mr. Shashank Jain, Advs. with SI Avdesh Yadav and SI Lokesh Raghav.
Crl.A. 1073/2024, Crl.M.A. 34616/2024 and Crl.M.A. 34617/2024
For the Appellants: Mr. Anirudh Ramanathan, Ms. Tamanna Pankaj & Ms. Priya Vats, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. (SPP) with Ms. Asmita Singh, Ms. Disha Joshi, Ms. Ankita Malkhan & Mr. Shashank Jain, Advs. with SI Avdesh Yadav and SI Lokesh Raghav.
Crl.A. 1076/2024, Crl.M.A. 34739/2024 and Crl.M.A. 34740/2024
For the Appellants: Mr. Anirudh Ramanathan, Ms. Tamanna Pankaj & Ms. Priya Vats, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. (SPP) with Ms. Asmita Singh, Ms. Disha Joshi, Ms. Ankita Malkhan & Mr. Shashank Jain, Advs. with SI Avdesh Yadav and SI Lokesh Raghav.
Crl.A. 1096/2024, Crl.M.A. 35241/2024 and Crl.M.A. 35242/2024
For the Appellants: Mr. Anirudh Ramanathan, Ms. Tamanna Pankaj & Ms. Priya Vats, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. (SPP) with Ms. Asmita Singh, Ms. Disha Joshi, Ms. Ankita Malkhan & Mr. Shashank Jain, Advs. with SI Avdesh Yadav and SI Lokesh Raghav.
Crl.A. 1097/2024, Crl.M.A. 35244/2024 and Crl.M.A. 35245/2024
For the Appellants: Mr. Anirudh Ramanathan, Ms. Tamanna Pankaj & Ms. Priya Vats, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. (SPP) with Ms. Asmita Singh, Ms. Disha Joshi, Ms. Ankita Malkhan & Mr. Shashank Jain, Advs. with SI Avdesh Yadav and SI Lokesh Raghav.
Crl.A. 558/2025, Crl.M.A. 13078/2025 and Crl.M.A. 13079/2025
For the Appellants: Mr. Sowjhanya Shankaran, Mr. Siddharth Satija, Mr. Akash Sachan, Mr. Anuka Bachawat and Ms. Charu Sinha, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, SPP with Mr. Ranjeeb Kamal Bora, with DSP Surender Pal, NIA for R-NIA.
JUDGMENT
These appeals, filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (“NIA Act”), challenge orders of Special Courts whereby Charges are framed against the appellants in different cases. A preliminary objection is raised by the Respondent/NIA that an appeal against an Order framing Charge is not maintainable under Section 21 of the NIA Act.
2. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that as per Section 21 of the NIA Act, an appeal is maintainable against every order other than an interlocutory order. It is already settled by the Supreme Court, that, an Order framing Charge is not an interlocutory order, but an intermediate order, thus, from a plain reading of the section, an appeal would be maintainable.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that a plain reading cannot be given to Section 21 as the same would not serve the purpose of the NIA Act. It should rather be interpreted in a manner which fulfils the purpose of the rest of the sections along with the Act, and, thus, a purposeful interpretation needs to be given.
4. Both parties have, broadly, referred to the same set of judgments of the Supreme Court, albeit
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
