IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 26017 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

Between:

Asim Shariff S/o Late Anwar Shariff, Aged about 47 years R/at No. 61, 1^st Main, S.K. Garden, Benson Town, Bengaluru - 560046 (Petitioner is in Judicial Custody)

…Petitioner (By Sri Mohammed Tahir, Advocate)

Digitally signed And:

by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M National Investigation Agency Location: H IGH COURT OF Ministry of Home Affairs, KARNATAKA Branch Office, Bengaluru, # 3^rd Floor, BSNL Telephone Exchange, HAL, 2^nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-560 008 Represented by its Superintendent of Police.

…Respondent (By Sri. Prasanna Kumar P., Spl.P.P.)

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 in Spl. C. No.

181/2017 for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201 read with section 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 27 of Arms Act and under sections 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, passed by 49th Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Special Court for trial of NIA Cases CCH-50 at Bengaluru at Annexure-E, consequently appreciate the application at Annexure-F and quash the order dated

06.07.2024 at Annexure-D.

This Writ Petition, coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, order was made therein as under:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR and HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR)

The accused no.5 in Spl.C.C.No.181/2017, on the file of Special Court for Trial of NIA cases, Bengaluru, has called in question the order dated 12.08.2024 produced at Annexure ‘E’. The events that led to this writ petition being filed are:

2. In the course of proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.181/2017 relating to murder of one Rudresh, accused no.6 while in custody, sent a letter to the Special Court through the Chief Superintendent of Central Prison seeking pardon as he was ready to make full disclosure of circumstances relating to the case. Acting upon his application, the Special Court directed the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to record the statement of accused no.6, and thereafter, by order dated 6.7.2024, it granted pardon to accused no.6 exercising power under Section 306 of Cr.P.C. by imposing some conditions. Then accused no.5 made an application, vide Annexure ‘F’, under Section 48 read with Section 45 of UAPA to recall the order dated 6.7.2024. After hearing both sides, the Special Court dismissed the said application. This is the order challenged in this writ petition.

3. We have heard the argument of Sri. Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the NIA.

4. Sri. Mohammed Tahir posited his argument in such a way that once sanction order is granted to proceed against an accused for the scheduled offences and the Special Court takes cognizance of the offences, that accused cannot become an approver as Section 48 of UAPA is a bar for tendering pardon. It was his argument that Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act provides for an accused becoming an approver, but in UAPA, which is a code by itself such a provision is not there. For this reason Section 306 of Cr.P.C. cannot be applied to permit an accused to become an approver, and it is in this context Section 48 of UAPA has applicability and therefore impugned order is to be set aside.

5. Sri. Prasanna Kumar argued that Section 306 of Cr.P.C. permits tendering of pardon to an accused who becomes an approver. In UAPA there is no provision similar to Section 5(2) in Prevention of Corruption Act, but Section 16 of the NIA Act makes it clear that the provisions of Cr.P.C. are applicable and the trial in the Special Court takes place in accordance with procedure prescribed for sessions tria