Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J.

1. By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of all the above mentioned appeals, which have arisen out of the order, dated 06.09.2012, passed, in Special NIA Case No. 01 of 2010, by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Assam, Guwahati, whereby the learned Court below has framed charges under Sections 120B and 121A IPC read with Sections 17, 18, 20 and 21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, against the present accused-appellants. Before these appeals could be heard on merit, a preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent herein, namely, National Investigating Agency, the preliminary objection being that these appeals, which have been preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 (in short, 'NIA Act, 2008'), is not maintainable in law inasmuch as an order framing charge in a case, which is investigated by the NIA and covered by the provisions of the NIA Act, 2008, is an interlocutory order and Sub-section (1) of Section 21 specifically bars appeal from being entertained by High Court against any interlocutory order of a Special Court, which is constituted under Section 11 or under Section 22 of the NIA Act, 2008, as the case may be.

2. On the preliminary objection having been raised, as indicated above, we have heard, on the preliminary objection, so raised, Mr. D.K. Das, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the NIA, and Mr. M.G. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Senior counsel, as Amicus Curiae.

3. Appearing on behalf of the respondents, Mr. D.K. Das, learned Senior counsel, has made us traverse through not only the Preamble, but also the Statement of Object and Reason for enactment of NIA Act, 2008, and various other provisions contained therein, particularly, Sections 3, 4, 6, 7, 11 and Sub-section (5) of Section 16 in order to show that the legislative intent, in the enactment of NIA Act, 2008, is to have an investigation agency to investigate, primarily, offences relating to 'terrorism', apart from other penal provisions, if required, and for setting up of Special Court with special scheme for investigation so that investigations are expeditious, fair and appropriately supervised and the trial of the cases, investigated by the NIA, be conducted expeditiously and concluded with great dispatch.

4. Trying to drive home his point, Mr. Das, learned, Senior counsel, has submitted that while the Parliament provided by Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008, that an appeal shall lie before a Division Bench of High Court from any judgment, sentence or order, it consciously excluded the provisions for appeal in respect of an interlocutory order. This legislative intent, submits Mr. Das, is reiterated by specifically laying down in Sub-section (3) of Section 21 that no appeal or revision shall lie to any Court other than High Court from any judgment, sentence or order, including an interlocutory order, passed by a Special Court.

5. An order framing charge by Special Court, according to Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel, is an interlocutory order and no appeal or revision would, therefore, lie, in the light of the provisions of Section 21(1) read with Section 21(3) of the NIA Act, 2008, against an order framing charge by Special Court.

6. Referring to Section 21(1) of the NIA Act, 2008, Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel, has also pointed out that Section 21 opens with a non-obstante clause, which seeks to exclude the application of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, so far as appeal or revision, provided under the NIA Act, 2008, is concerned.

7. It is also submitted by Mr. Das, learned Standing counsel, NIA, that the provisions, embodied in Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008, are in pari materia Section 34 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'POTA') and this Court has already held, in Redaul Hussain Khan Vs. National Investigation Agency, reported in 2009 (3) GLT 855, t