JUDGMENT

1. By the medium of this common judgment, it is proposed to dispose of the above two petition as both solicit to decide the same question as well arise out of the same order, passed by the Trial Court. The petitioners initially filed appeals against the order dated 26.08.2022 passed in a case titled ‘State v. Rameez Raja & Ors’ by the court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu (Special Judge designated under Section 22 of NIA Act) hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’ by virtue of which charges framed by the Trial Court vide order dated 25.10.2019 were not altered against the petitioners, for the commission of offences punishable U/Ss 3/13 UAP Act, 7/25 Arms Act and 4/5 Explosive Substances Act read with Section 120-B RPC, in a case arising out of an FIR No. 182/2018 registered at P/S Kishtwar against all the accused including the petitioners.

2. The appeals filed by the petitioners were listed before the Division Bench of this Court and vide order dated 16.02.2023, the Division Bench, after discussing law on the subject held that an order framing charge or an order altering or refusing to alter the charge passed by the Special Court under the NIA Act is an interlocutory order not appealable under sub section (1) of Section 21 of NIA Act and held the appeals non maintainable. However, the request of the learned counsel for the appellants to convert those proceedings in a petition under Section 482 CrPC was accepted. This is how both the appeals were treated as petitions under Section 482 CrPC and came listed to be before this Bench.

3. The petitioners are primarily aggrieved of the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by the Trial Court whereby the charges were framed against the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable U/Ss 3/13 UAP Act 1967, 7/25 Arms Act, 1959 and 4/5 Explosive Substances Act, 1908, read with Section 120-B RPC and also the subsequent order dated 26.08.2022 whereby the Trial Court had rejected their application seeking alteration of the charge, as such, both the orders have been challenged by the petitioners before this court.

4. Both the orders have been assailed on the following grounds:

“ a. That orders impugned are bad in the eyes of law and hence, deserves to be set aside;

b. That from the perusal of the charge sheet there is no material or evidence or witness against the appellant for the commission of the abovesaid offence, hence, the appellants are entitled to be discharge from the abovesaid offence;

c. That the trial court has amended the charges of one of the accused i.e. accused no.2 namely Nisar Ahmed and the charges to the extent of the appellants have not been altered or discharged on the ground that the trial court has no jurisdiction to alter the charges framed against the appellant, hence, the appellant seek parity, on this ground the impugned orders shall be set aside;

d. That the appellant is in incarceration since from the last five years without any trial;

e. That from the perusal of the order dated 25.10.2019, it is evidence that the Hon’ble Trial Court has not taken cognizance for the commission of offence under Section 120, 121-A, however, in the last para of the order dated 25.10.2019 Section 120-B of the RPC has also been mentioned along with 3/13 UAP Act, 7/25 Arms Act, 4/5 Explosive Substances Act. It can be an error as in the absence of any offence in the RPC Section 120-B of RPC cannot be charged; and f. That there is no recovery from the possession of the appellant of any arms and ammunitions or explosives substances, hence, framing of charge under Section 7/25 Arms Act, 4/25 Explosive Substances Act is illegal and unwarranted under law, as charges under Section 120-B, 7/25 Arms Act and 4/5 Explosive Substances Act are not made out from the perusal of the charge sheet. Furthermore, there is no statement against the appellants in the charge sheet which constitute offence under Section 3/13 Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, hence the impugned order deserves