JUDGMENT :

P.N. Prakash, J.

This Full Bench has been constituted to decide the following questions formulated by A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J., vide order dated 16.12.2020, passed in Jaffar Sathiq @ Babu vs. the State (Crl.M.P. No.13123 of 2020):

i. whether an application against the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge in a matter concerning UAP Act shall be numbered as a bail application or an appeal ? and

ii. whether, it has to be posted before the Single Judge or a two Judges Bench of this Court?

2. The case before A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J. arose out of the dismissal of an application for bail for offences under Sections 447, 448, 294(b), 307, 506(II) and 120-B, IPC and Sections 15, 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (for short “the UAPA”). Although the accused were released on statutory bail, it was brought to the notice of the learned Judge that by an order dated 13.05.2020 passed in Crl.R.C.No.18 of 2020, P. Rajamanickam, J. had opined that a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against an order of the Sessions Court extending the remand of an accused arrayed for offences under the U.A.P. Act, 1967, was not maintainable. P.Rajamanickam, J. concluded that since the UAPA was a scheduled enactment under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short “the NIA Act, 2008”) the mandate of Section 22(3) required that the procedure contemplated in Chapter IV of the said Act must apply. Consequently, the learned Judge concluded that the appropriate course was to file an appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008, which would be heard by a Division Bench of this Court.

3. It was also brought to the notice of A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J. that another learned single Judge (M.V. Muralidaran, J.) had taken a different view in Abdulla vs. State (Crl.R.C.No. 223 of 2017 vide order dated 28.04.2018). The case of Abdulla (supra) arose out of the dismissal of an application for discharge by the Special Court for Bomb Blast and NIA Cases. It was observed that a Division Bench of this Court had, vide order dated 01.09.2015 passed in Crl.Appeal Nos. 243, 340 and 524 of 2015, observed that once the cases were not investigated by the NIA, the special procedure set out in the NIA Act, 2008, would not apply, and that the trial would proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. Sustenance was also drawn from a Full Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in Bahadur Kora vs. State of Bihar (2015 (2) MWN (Cr.) 305 (FB) (Pat.)). On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, M.V. Muralidaran, J. concluded that the entire proceedings before the Special Court were without jurisdiction, with the result that the order of discharge was amenable to revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before a single Judge of the High Court.

4. In view of the conflicting decisions of two learned single Judges, A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J. saw it fit to refer the questions, set out in paragraph 1, (supra), with a request to place the papers before the Hon’ble Chief Justice to constitute a Bench of appropriate strength for an authoritative pronouncement. This Full Bench has been constituted pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice to answer the aforesaid question(s).

5. We have heard Mr. John Sathyan, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan, learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, learned Advocate General, Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, Mr. C.S.S. Pillai, learned Special Public Prosecutor for NIA Act cases and Mr. B. Mohan, Advocate. Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae.

6. The learned counsel invited our attention to the decision of the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Bahadur Kora (supra), wherein, it was held that merely because offences under the U.A.P Act, 1967 were alleged, it could not be said that the procedure contemplated under Chapter IV of the NIA Act, 200