Back
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
Sanjib Banerjee, W. Diengdoh, J.
Dimchuingam Ruangmei - Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 9/2022
Decided On : 29-09-2022
Appeal - Maintainability - National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed against the trial court's order framing charges against him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAP Act). The National Investigation Agency (NIA) contended that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 21 of the NIA Act, as it only allows appeals from judgments, sentences, or orders with an element of finality.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that an appeal does not lie under Section 21 of the NIA Act against an order framing charges. It emphasized that the NIA Act provides for a speedy trial without interruption, and the appeal provision must be read as it says. The court also highlighted that the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 227 of the Constitution could be invoked for extraordinary cases, but an appeal would not be maintainable for an order framing charges.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act, which only allows appeals from certain judgments, sentences, or orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 21 of the NIA Act, the purpose of the Act, and the limited scope of appeal allowed. It also considered the applicability of previous judgments and the context of the NIA Act in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable under Section 21 of the NIA Act. The court also clarified that its observations were confined to the present proceedings and would not prejudice the prosecution or the accused at the trial.
JUDGMENT
Sanjib Banerjee; CJ. - This appeal has been carried under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against an order dated March 8, 2021 by which the trial court has framed charges against the appellant herein, inter alia, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the UAP Act).
2. No issue as to jurisdiction was raised by the appellant at the time of framing of charges, nor was any specific application filed for discharge on any particular ground. However, an oral prayer for discharge was made on the submission that the charge-sheet did not indicate the ingredients of any offence having been committed by the appellant herein.
3. The charge-sheet made out one Gaisinglung Meiringmei @ Gaising to be the principal accused in a case of kidnapping for ransom. The charge-sheet indicated the association of the appellant herein with the principal accused and the appellant herein being 'in constant touch' with the principal accused on the mobile phone during the relevant time. Paragraphs 17.15 to 17.17 of the charge-sheet spelt out the rudiments of the material and the allegations against the appellant herein, while paragraph 17.19 revealed the case against the principal accused.
4. It may do well to notice the case made out in the charge-sheet in the relevant paragraphs 17.15 to 17.19:
'17.15 During the course of investigation, interrogation of the arrested accused Dimchuingam Ruangmei (A-3) was carried out and during investigation, it is established that he is a member of NSCN (K). Investigation established that he along with Dingalung who is another NSCN (K) hard core cadre and close associate of Gaisinglung Meiringmei @ Gaising (A-1) visited Mukhla on 18-04-2018 and met Gaisinglung Meiringmei @ Gaising (A-1) and conspired to abduct the BIPL employee. He was arrested by Meghalaya Police on 14.05.2018 while coming to Shillong to accompany the wife of Gaisinglung Meiringmei @ Gaising namely Tanthaoliu Gonmei (A-5) to carry the part of extorted money to Manipur. During investigation, it was revealed that accused Dimchuingam Ruangmei (A-3) came to Shillong to accompany the accused Tanthaoliu Gonmei (A-5), the wife of accused Gaisinglung Meiringmei @ Gaising (A-1) from Shillong to Imphal on 13.05.2018. However, accused Tanthaoliu Gonmei (A-5) had already left Shillong before Dimchuingam Ruangmei (A-3) reached Shillong. As a result, accused Dimchuingam Ruangmei (A-3) could not meet accused (A-5) and therefore, he stayed at Shillong on the night of 13.05.2018.
17.16 During investigation of the case, it was revealed that the accused Dimchuingam Ruangmei (A-3) was arrested by 8th Assam Rifles for being a member of NSCN (K) on previous occasion and later he was handed over to Manipur Police. In this regard, a case vide FIR No.73(8)/2015 dated 07.08.2015 was registered against him at Patsoi Police Station of Manipur. The copy of the FIR has also been collected.
17.17 During analysis of Call Detail Records (CDR) of Dimchuingam Ruangmei (mobile Nos.8414093921 and 9862794992), it is revealed that he was in constant touch with accused Gaisinglung Meiringmei @ Gaising (A-1). Call records and inter-connectivity chart shows that many calls were made between each other. This established their close association between them.
17.18 During investigation it was learnt that one NSCN (K) cadre namely Ganthoulung Rongmei @ Gan (A-4) was arrested by Assam Police vide Jirighat Police Station of Cachar district, Assam Case No.34/2018 dated 09.08.2018 under Section 120B, 121 of IPC, read with Sections 10 and 13 of UA(P) Act and Section 25 (1-A) Arms Act. Thereafter, Ganthoulung Rongmei @ Gan (A-4) was arrested in the instant case on 17.08.2018 after obtaining permission from the Hon'ble Special NIA Court, Shillong, Meghalaya.
17.19 During the course of investigation, it is established that the arrested accused Ganthoulung Rongmei @ Gan (A-4) on the direction of Gaisinglung Meiringmei @ Gaising (A-1), along wi
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....
Appeal is provided only from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, to a Division Bench of High Court both on facts and on law – Order framing Charge, as against final ord....
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 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.
(1) Orders granting or refusing to grant bail are of interlocutory nature.(2) Application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure invoking National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is not maint....
An application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a Special Court's refusal to discharge is not maintainable; remedies are available under Section 21(1) of the NIA Act.
An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the NIA Act, 2008 is not maintainable, and orders granting or refusing bail are appealable to the High Court under....
Bail applications under UAPA must be appealed to a Division Bench under Section 21 of the NIA Act, not maintained before the High Court.
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....
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
