J U D G M E N T

[Judgment was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

Under assail is the order dated 7th July, 2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.717 of 2022 in Special S.C. No. 2 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial for Bomb Blast Cases Chennai at Poonamalee, Chennai.

2. The appellant is an accused No.3. On 21.02.2022, an FIR was registered by the State Police in Crime No. 165 of 2022 under Section 148, 506 (ii) of IPC read with Section 28 of the Arms Act, 1959. Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, CTCR Division vide its order dated 29.04.2022 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 6(5) read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, directed the National Investigation Agency to take up the investigation. Accordingly, the case registered by the State Police was re-registered as FIR in RC No.20/2022/NIA/DLI dated 30.04.2022 under Section 148, 506 (ii) IPC read with Section 13, 38, 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 28 of Arms Act, 1959. Consequently, the appellant was arrested by the respondent Police. Investigation completed and charge sheet filed. The Trial Court took cognizances and the case was numbered as Special S.C. No. 2 of 2022. The appellant preferred Discharge Petition under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. Mr.I.Abdul Basith, learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that there is no material available on record to charge the appellant under Sections 18 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [hereinafter referred as ‘UA(P) Act’]. The State Police originally registered an FIR which was subsequently transferred to National Investigation Agency. The National Investigation Agency in the absence of any material implicated the appellant as accused No.3 despite the fact that prima facie offence has been made only against the A1 and A2 in the criminal case. In order to substantiate the said arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant would solicit our attention with reference to Arms recovered, which is an Air gun and to possess the same no license is required under the Arms Act.

4. Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the NIA would oppose by stating that sufficient evidences are collected so as to implicate A3 and A4 in the criminal case protected witnesses have given statements and the statements of the protected witness would reveal that prima facie case has been made against the appellant for conducting trial. The allegations in charge sheet has been relied on by the Prosecutor so as to establish that the appellant has involved in the commission of offence under UA(P) Act. Thus, the appeal is to be rejected.

5. We have considered the rival submissions made between to the parties to the lis on hand.

6. It is not in dispute that the case was initially registered on the basis of the written complaint of G.Arivazhagan, Sub-Inspector of Mayiladuthurai Police Station, by P.Selvam, Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police Station. Crime No. 165 of 2022 was registered on 21.01.2022 against 5 accused persons viz., (A-1) Sathik Batcha, (A-2) Mohamed Ashiq, (A-3) Mohamed Irfan, (A-4) Jegabar Ali and (A-5) Rahamathullah under Sections

148, 506 (ii) of IPC read with 28 of Arms Act, 1959.

7. Subsequently, the Government of India issued an order and consequently, National Investigation Agency launched their investigation.

8. We have gone through the charge sheet filed in Special S.C. No. 2 of 2022 regarding the allegations against the appellant/A3. It is relevant to consider Para 17.22 of the charge sheet, which reads as under:- “17.22 Investigation revealed that in continuation of their conspiracy, accused A-1 and A-2 along with other accused persons namely Mohamed Irfan (A-3) and Rahamathulla (A-5) were at Tamil Nadu Haj Services Society, No.3, Demellows Road, Choolai, Chennai-600112 (Latitude:13.