Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, JJ.
Rakesh Saw @ Sahu @ Rakesh Kumar Sahu S/o Kouleshwar Saw – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
B.A. No. 5937 of 2022
Decided On : 16-12-2022
N.I.A. Act - Jurisdiction of Special Courts - Sections 11, 21 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The court considered an application for regular bail under Section 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with a case registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, C.L.A. Act, and U.A.P.A. Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the scheduled offences under the U.A.P.A. Act are exclusively triable by Special Courts set up under the N.I.A. Act. The court also noted the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court for appeals from judgments, sentences, or orders of the Special Court.
Issues: (i) Whether the Special Court alone has exclusive jurisdiction to try the offences under the U.A.P.A. Act? (ii) Whether an application under Sections 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will be maintainable if a decision has been taken by the Special Court for offences under the U.A.P.A. Act? (iii) Whether the appeal will lie from any judgment, sentence, or order of a Special Court before the Division Bench as per the provision made under Section 21(2) of the N.I.A. Act, 2008?
Ratio Decidendi: The scheduled offences under the U.A.P.A. Act are exclusively triable by Special Courts set up under the N.I.A. Act. Appeals from judgments, sentences, or orders of the Special Court are to be heard by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Final Decision: The court answered the reference and directed the matter to be placed before the appropriate Bench.
JUDGMENT :
RAVI RANJAN, J.
1. The instant application has been filed under Section 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in connection with S.T. No. 71B/2013 arising out of Herhanj P.S. Case No. 14 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 302 of 2010 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 332 of the I.P.C. 27 of the Arms Act, 17 of C.L.A. Act and 13 of U.A.P.A. Act.
2. The learned Single Judge of this Court, while hearing the bail application, has passed the order dated 27.06.2022 which reads as under:
(2) Today learned counsel for the State has placed the order dated 23.12.2021 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 249 of 2021.
(3) Considering the above facts, let the matter be referred to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for consideration and for the appropriate order.”
3. This Court has perused the order dated 29.09.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No. 994 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has come to the opinion after going through the aims and objects of the National Investigating Agency Act 2008 that the scheduled offence is multi-dimensional, has to be investigated by the National Investigating Agency. But considering the nature of offence, if it is to be investigated by the State Agency then the case has to be tried by the Special Court created by the State Government under Section 22 of the N.I.A. Act.
The learned Single Judge has further come to the opinion that the scheduled offence can be investigated by two agencies, i.e. either by the National Investigating Agency or by the State Agency. If the investigation is done by the National Investigation Agency then the jurisdiction will be the Special Court created by the Central Government. But, if the investigation is done by the State Agency then the jurisdiction will be the Special Court designated by the State Government under Section 22 of the N.I.A. Act. In both the cases, the procedure prescribed under the N.I.A. Act will be applicable.
The learned Single Judge further is of the view that the jurisdiction lies with the Division Bench by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the instant revision petition, as such, the jurisdiction lies with the Division Bench under the appellate jurisdiction as prescribed under Section 21 of the N.I.A. Act and accordingly, the criminal revision application has been held to be not maintainable and the same had been dismissed. For ready reference, the extract of the said order reads as under:
Thus, the scheduled offence can be investigated by two agencies i.e. either by the National Investigating Agency or by the State Agency. If the investigation is done by the National Investigation Agency then the jurisdiction will be the Special Court created by the Central Government. But, if the investigation is done by the State Agency then the jurisdiction will be Special Court designated by the State Government under Section 22 of the N.I.A. Act. In both the cases, the procedure prescribed under the N.I.A. Act will be applicable.
Viewing to the present case, it is not in dispute that the offence committed is the scheduled offence and it has been investigated by the State Agency. The jurisdiction has been exercised by the Sessions Court. In view of Section 22(3) of the N.I.A. Act, it will be deemed to be Special Court and the procedure prescribed under the N.I.A. Act will be applicab
Scheduled offences under the U.A.P.A. Act are exclusively triable by Special Courts set up under the N.I.A. Act, and appeals from their judgments, sentences, or orders are to be heard by the Division....
The main legal point established is that the bail application under the NIA Act is maintainable under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. if the case has not been notified to the Central Government as require....
In the absence of a designated Special Court under the NIA Act, the jurisdictional Sessions Court has the authority to try scheduled offences under UAPA.
Bail applications under UAPA must be appealed to a Division Bench under Section 21 of the NIA Act, not maintained before the High Court.
: Grant of bail – State Government has power to designate one or more Courts of Session as Special Courts for trial of offences under any or all enactments specified in Schedule to NIA Act.
Until a Special Court is constituted by State Government under sub-Section (1) of Section 22 of NIA Act, in case of registration of any offence punishable under UAPA, Court of Sessions of division in....
The main legal point established is the entitlement to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and the legislative mandate that offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 are to ....
The right to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C is an indefeasible right once the statutory period for filing the charge sheet/challan has lapsed, and offences under UAPA are to be tried exclus....
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
