JUDGMENT :

M.SUNDAR, J.

Captioned Criminal Appeal i.e., Crl.A.No.401 of 2023 has been filed under Section 21 of the 'National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Act 34 of 2008)', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'NIA Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity, assailing an order dated 09.02.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.738 of 2022 in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2022 vide C.C.No.2 of 2021 (CNR No.TNCH06-00743-2022) on the file of Special Court under the NIA Act (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases), Chennai at Poonamallee. This 09.02.2023 order shall be referred to as 'impugned order' and the Court which made the impugned order shall be referred to as 'trial Court', both for the sake of convenience and clarity.

2. Appellant filed aforementioned Crl.M.P.No.738 of 2022 in the trial Court inter alia under Section 227 of 'The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)' [hereinafter 'Cr.P.C' for the sake of brevity and clarity] seeking discharge from all the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet. It is necessary to record that according to the charge sheet, the charges levelled against the appellant are for alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 124-A, 153-A, 153-B, 505(1)(b), 505(1)(C) and 505(2) of 'Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)' ['IPC' for brevity] and Section 13(1)(b) of 'The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967' [hereinafter 'UAPA' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity].

3. The discharge petition was resisted by the prosecution and the trial Court framed four points for consideration and the relevant portion of the impugned order capturing the four points reads as follows:

'The point for consideration is

1. Whether the Prosecution has obtained sanction under Section 45(1) of U.A(P).Act, 1967?

2. Whether the Acts of committed by the Petitioner would fall under the Definitions UA(P) Act, 1967 and NIA Act, 2008?

3. Whether there is sufficient ground to proceed with the case? 4. Whether the application can be allowed?'

4. While Point No.1 was answered separately in Paragraph VII of the impugned order, Points 2 to 4 were answered together in one go vide paragraph VIII of the impugned order. There shall be more elaboration on this elsewhere infra in this order.

5. In and by the impugned order the discharge petition filed by the appellant was dismissed and that has given raise to the captioned appeal as already alluded to supra.

6. Mr.I.Abdul Basith, learned counsel for appellant submitted that the impugned order relies on Wikipedia and arrived at a conclusion about the aim and objective of an entity; that the case laws pressed into service by the appellant have not been considered and have been brushed aside in one go by saying that the facts are completely different without any discussion or elaboration much less dispositive reasoning; that the statement of some witnesses (LWs 4, 8, 9 and 10) were not supplied to the accused and the right of fair trial has been infracted but this point has not been considered by saying that they are protected witnesses within the meaning of UAPA and NIA Acts; that the charge against the accused for alleged offence under UAPA is Section 13(1)(b) of UAPA but the impugned order has referred to Section 15, which is a Chapter IV proceedings and serious in nature in complete contrast qua Section 13(1)(b) which is a Chapter III proceedings.

7. This Bench issued notice and Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for NIA Cases accepted notice for the respondent.

8. At the outset we notice that it is a case of certain points not being considered and reliance being placed on extraneous material and therefore, with the consent of both sides, the main appeal itself was taken up.

9. Before proceeding further we make it clear that four points canvassed by the learned counsel for appellant which have been captured supra inter-alia turn on non-consideration of case laws, relying on extraneous material which is forbidden vide ratio laid down by Hon'ble Suprem