JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Senior Advocate along with Md. Shadab Ansari, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, advocate along with Mr. Saurav Kumar, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent National Investigating Agency.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 21 of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the NIA Act) against the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, NIA at Ranchi whereby the petition for discharge filed the petitioner has been rejected.

4. The impugned order has been passed in connection with R.C. Case No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI/corresponding to Special (NIA) No. 3 of 2018 under Section 384/386/387/414 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code; Section 25 (1-b) (a), 26/35 of the Arms Act, 1959 and also under Section 16/17/20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as UA(P) Act) and Section 17 (1) (2) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CLA Act) arising out of Tandwa P.S. Case No. 2 of 2016.

Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a Central Government employee and worked as General Manager of Magadh Amrapali Area Coal Mines, during the period from 18.10.2012 to 31.12.2017. During the period in question, there was total collapse of the law and order in the area due to ultra-right-wing activists in the colliery. The colliery was closed and the appellant was assigned the challenging job to start and make the aforesaid colliery functional. With the aforesaid object, the appellant followed the policy of Coal India and got in touch with the local people, Organisation, labour Union, Associations etc. so that compensation money, job in lieu of land acquired etc. may be given to those who genuinely deserved it. Accordingly, various meetings took place in presence of Press, Police and Officials of the State Administration.

6. The learned counsel submits that one Tandwa P.S. Case No. 2 of 2016 dated 11.01.2016 was instituted and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed on 10.03.2016 against accused persons, but the appellant was not charge-sheeted and he was not even named as a witness in the charge-sheet. He submits that the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and the investigation against other accused remained pending. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was taken up by NIA pursuant to the letter of Government of India dated 13.02.2018 and the case was renumbered as Special (NIA) Case No. 3 of 2018. The NIA filed supplementary charge-sheet and cognizance was taken inter-alia under Sections 16, 17, 20 and 23 of UA(P) Act and the other related Sections.

7. The specific case of the appellant is that once the charge-sheet was submitted by State police under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. the National Investigation Agency could not have taken up further investigation without the permission of the court and accordingly, one of the moot questions to be answered in the present case is as to whether the NIA could have taken up the investigation without the permission of the court. It is submitted that if this point is answered in favour of the appellant, then the charge-sheet submitted by NIA will be of no consequence and accordingly, the appellant should have been discharged by the learned court below as admittedly, in the initial investigation, pursuant to which charge-sheet was submitted under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. the appellant was not an accused. For the aforesaid proposition, the learned counsel for the appellant has heavily relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 762 and has submitted that the pres