IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Puneet Gupta, JJ.
National Investigation Agency – Petitioner
Versus
Owais Amin @ Cherry & Ors. – Respondents
CrlA(D) No. 11 of 2020
Decided On : 27-04-2021
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT - Appeal against discharge of accused under various sections of Ranbir Penal Code and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act - Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A, 122, 306, 307, 309, 411 of RPC, Sections 3, 4 of Explosive Substances Act, Section 4 of J&K Public Property (Prevention of Damage Act), Sections 16, 18, 20, 23, 38, 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
Fact of the Case:
An FIR was registered for an attack on a CRPF convoy with explosive substances. NIA re-registered the FIR and presented a chargesheet under various sections of RPC and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The accused were discharged by the trial court, and the appeal challenged the discharge and the failure to frame charges under certain sections.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complaint fulfilled the requirements, and no preliminary investigation by the District Magistrate was mandatory. However, it upheld the discharge for certain sections due to lack of authorization by the Government. The court remanded the matter for appropriate orders on other sections.
Issues: Discharge of accused under certain sections, failure to frame charges under specific sections, compliance with provisions of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that no specific form was prescribed for filing a complaint, and a preliminary investigation by the District Magistrate was not mandatory. However, authorization by the Government was required for certain offences.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the matter was remanded for passing appropriate orders on specific sections.
JUDGMENT :
Thakur, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Jammu to the extent that the accused-respondents herein have been discharged under Section 120-B, 121, 121-A & 122 of the Ranbir Penal Code (for short 'RPC') in FIR No. RC-03/2019/NIA/JMU.
2. Further the challenge in the present appeal also is to the extent that even when the under chargesheet presented before the court contained offences Section 306 and 411 RPC as also Section 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, yet the trial court at the stage of framing of charge failed to record any reason for not framing of charge under the aforementioned sections.
3. Briefly stated the material facts are as under:
4. An FIR bearing No. 39/2019 came to be registered at Police Station, Banihal District Ramban under Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A, 124-A and 307 RPC as also Section 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Sections 15, 16, 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The facts leading to the registration of the FIR were that on 30.3.2019 at around 10.15 hrs., a Santro car with registration No. DL-5917 laden with explosive substances was driven by respondent No. 1-Owais Amin @ Cherry and that the CRPF convoy, which was on its way from Srinagar to Jammu, was attacked by the said respondent by exploding the IED which was placed in the said car. The explosion on account of IED blast damaged the rear glass of the bus and that the santro car laden with explosive substance got burnt after the explosion.
5. It is stated that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India, in view of the gravity of the offences, its pan-Indian and transnational linkages and in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section 5 of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, vide its Order dated 12.4.2019 directed the National Investigation Agency to take up the investigation of FIR No. 39/2019. Based upon the aforementioned authorization, the NIA re-registered the FIR as RC-03/2019/NIA/JMU. After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was presented before the Learned Special Judge, NIA, Jammu under Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A, 122, 306, 307, 309 and 411 of RPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act, Section 4 of J&K Public Property (Prevention of Damage Act), 1985 and Sections 16, 18, 20, 23, 38 and 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
It is further stated that before filing the chargesheet, sanction for prosecution under Section 45(1) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 was taken from the competent authority.
6. It is urged that a complaint under Section 196 and 196-A of the Cr.P.C. was forwarded to the competent authority i.e., District Magistrate, Ramban. It is further urged that the court below ordered the dropping of charges under Section 120-B, 121, 121-A & 122 RPC and not only that, no reasons were given for not framing the charges under Section 306 and 411 of the RPC as also Section 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
7. On a perusal of the order impugned, it can be seen that the court below discharged the accused-respondents in the aforementioned offences on the following grounds:
(ii) That there was no preliminary investigation got conducted by the District Magistrate in terms of Section 196-B of the Cr.P.C.;
(iii) That there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 196-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure as complaint of the District Magistrate contained no reference that the District Magistrate had been authorized or empowered by the Govt. to file the complaint.
8. Insofar as the ground 1 reflected hereina
Bhimappa Basappa Bhu Sannavar v. Laxman Shivarayappa Samagouda & Ors.
Authorization by the Government is required for certain offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case - Once information is received in regard to commission of cognizable offence by an officer in charge of a police station, such officer in terms o....
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....
An appeal does not lie under Section 21 of the NIA Act against an order framing charges. The court emphasized the limited scope of appeal allowed by the Act and the need to consider the purpose and c....
sub-section (2) of section 55 is also very relevant to be mentioned here, it says that for the purposes of section 156 of Cr P.C, the area in regard to which an Inspector of Excise or Sub-Inspector o....
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.