Back
SANJEEV KUMAR, MOHAN LAL
National Investigation Agency Through Its Chief Investigating Officer, Jammu – Appellant
Versus
3rd Additional Sessions Judge District Court, Jammu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeev Kumar, J.
1. Chief Investigating Officer of National Investigating Agency (NIA) Sanjay Nagpal along-with public prosecutor filed an application under Section 267 of CrPC before the Court of Special Judge U/S 11 of the NIA Act (3rd Additional Sessions Judge) [“the trial court” for short] seeking production warrant against one Abdul Jabbar @ Jabbar S/o Abdul Habib R/o H. No. 3919 Urdu Bazar near Jagat Cinema Chandni Chowk Delhi lodged in judicial custody in District Jail Bilaspur in FIR No. 288/2017.
2. In the application, it was pleaded that NIA New Delhi has registered a case bearing No. RC-16/2016/NIA/DLI, dated 16th December 2016 for commission of offence under Section 17 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
3. The case relates to large scale transfer of funds from Pakistan to India through the import of California almonds and other items via cross LoC trade facilitation centres located at Salamabad, Uri, and Chakkan-da-Bagh, Poonch, for their purported use for fomenting terrorism in J&K. It was claimed by the appellant herein in his application that during investigation, Mr. Abdul Jabbar has been found to be involved in the said LoC trade and is awar
The court established that the discretion to condone delays in appeals under the NIA Act extends beyond 90 days and clarified that production warrants can be issued during investigations, not just wh....
(1) Appeal – Limitation—Appellate Courts have power to condone delay beyond 90 days period, despite language of 2nd proviso to Section 21(5) of NIA Act, 2008.(2) NIA Act, as a whole, cannot said to b....
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.
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 judgment in Buhari @ Kichan Buhari's case is overruled, affirming that the limitation period under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act is mandatory and cannot be condoned beyond specified limits.
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....
The provision in Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, mandating a 90-day limit for filing appeals is mandatory, and failure to comply renders the appeal not maintainable.
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
