9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 1442 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking transfer of the records and proceedings in the trial from the ASJ Nanded to the NIA Special Court Mumbai - interpretation of Section 6 of the NIA Act - scheduled offences - HELD THAT - What emerges is that upon the issuance of a direction under subSections (4) and (5) of Section 6 the State government and a police officer of the State government investigating the offence are not to proceed with the investigation and have to forthwith transmit the documents and records to the NIA (Section 6(6)) but equally it is the duty of the officer in-charge of the police station to continue the investigation till the NIA actually takes up the investigation of the case (Section 6(7)). In other words the power of the officer in-charge of the police station to continue with the investigation is denuded upon the issuance of a direction under subSections (4) or (5) of Section 6 and the NIA actually taking up the investigation of the case. Thus both the issuance of directions under sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 6 and the NIA actually taking up the investigation of the case would result in the power of the officer in-charge of the police station being denuded. Until then the power of the State government to investigate and prosecute any scheduled offence by virtue of the provisions of Section 10 is preserved. The exclusive jurisdiction which is conferred on the Special Court to try a scheduled offence investigated by the NIA is amplified by the non-obstante provision which overrides the provisions contained in the CrPC. Section 22(1) empowers the State government to constitute Special Courts for the trial of offences under the enactments which have been specified in the Schedule to the NIA Act and which have been investigated by the State Investigative Agency. The contention of the ATS Nanded is that the investigation by them until the NIA Mumbai took up the investigation of the case was in terms of the mandate of sub-Section (7) of Section 6 since the provision states that till the NIA takes up the investigation of the case it shall be the duty of the officer in-charge of the Police Station to continue the investigation . In the present case the NIA Mumbai intimated the ATS Nanded to transfer the case papers on 23 November 2016 following which the ATS Nanded sent the papers on 8 December 2016 - the investigation conducted by the ATS Nanded prior to this was within the mandate of sub-Section (7) of Section 6 of the NIA Act. The said provision is clarificatory in nature so as to remove any doubt about the duty of the officer in-charge of the police station to continue the investigation till the Agency i.e. the NIA Mumbai in the instant case took up the investigation on receipt of the case papers. Therefore the continuation of the investigation and the filing of the charge-sheet upon its conclusion by the ATS Nanded was in terms of the statutory mandate under Section 6(7) of the NIA Act. The continuance of the investigation by the ATS Nanded in terms of Section 6(7) of the NIA Act till the investigation had been taken up by the NIA Mumbai was legitimate. A reading of Section 10 of the NIA Act indicates that there is no embargo on the State Investigating Agency to investigate a scheduled offence which would include offences under the UAPA. Consequently till the investigation was taken up by the NIA Mumbai the ATS Nanded was acting within jurisdiction in investigating the offence and filing the charge-sheet in the present case - In the present case the NIA Mumbai took up the investigation only on 8 December 2016 after receiving the records from the ATS Nanded and thereupon it filed an application for transfer of the case from the ASJ Nanded to the NIA Special Court Mumbai constituted under Section 11 of the NIA Act. The Government of Maharashtra in exercise of powers conferred by Section 11 read with Section 185 of the CrPC issued a notification dated 26 August 2016 designating the CJM Nanded as the remand court and the ASJ Nanded as a Special Court for the trial of cases filed by the ATS Nanded. There is no challenge to the notification dated 26 August 2016. In this backdrop the CJM Nanded has been designated as a Court of remand and the ASJ Nanded as a Special Court under the CrPC for the trial of cases filed by the ATS Nanded. Hence they both had the jurisdiction to entertain the present case under the UAPA till the NIA Mumbai took over the investigation on 8 December 2016 and sought a transfer of the case to the NIA Special Court at Mumbai constituted under Section 11 of the NIA Act. In accordance with Section 6(7) the ATS Nanded was not barred from continuing with its investigation till the NIA Mumbai actually took up the investigation - Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Continuation of investigation by the ATS Nanded. 2. CJM, Nanded's jurisdiction for remand and committal to trial. Detailed Analysis: A. Continuation of Investigation by the ATS Nanded Issue: Whether the ATS Nanded had the authority to continue the investigation and file a charge-sheet after the Central Government directed the NIA to take over the investigation under Section 6(4) of the NIA Act. Analysis: 1. Legal Provisions Involved: - Section 6(4) of the NIA Act allows the Central Government to direct the NIA to investigate a scheduled offence. - Section 6(6) stipulates that upon such direction, the State Government and any police officer of the State Government investigating the offence shall not proceed with the investigation and shall forthwith transmit the relevant documents and records to the NIA. - Section 6(7) clarifies that until the NIA takes up the investigation, it shall be the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to continue the investigation. 2. Judgment: - The ATS Nanded registered the FIR on 14 July 2016 and continued the investigation, arresting four accused persons. - The Central Government directed the NIA to take over the investigation on 8 September 2016, and the NIA renumbered the case on 14 September 2016. - The ATS Nanded filed a charge-sheet on 7 October 2016, before the NIA Mumbai took over the investigation on 8 December 2016. - The court held that the ATS Nanded was obligated to continue the investigation until the NIA actually took over, as per Section 6(7) of the NIA Act. - The NIA Mumbai intimated the ATS Nanded to transfer the case records on 23 November 2016, and the records were handed over on 8 December 2016. - The court concluded that the continuation of the investigation and the filing of the charge-sheet by the ATS Nanded were legitimate under Section 6(7) of the NIA Act. B. CJM, Nanded's Jurisdiction for Remand and Committal to Trial Issue: Whether the CJM, Nanded had the jurisdiction to remand the accused persons and commit the case for trial before the ASJ, Nanded, given that the offences were scheduled offences under the NIA Act. Analysis: 1. Legal Provisions Involved: - Section 11(1) of the NIA Act empowers the Central Government to constitute Special Courts for the trial of scheduled offences. - Section 13(1) states that every scheduled offence investigated by the NIA shall be tried only by the Special Court. - Section 22 allows State Governments to constitute Special Courts for the trial of scheduled offences investigated by State Investigative Agencies. - Section 16(1) allows a Special Court to take cognizance of any offence without the accused being committed to it for trial. 2. Judgment: - The ATS Nanded filed the charge-sheet before the CJM, Nanded, who took cognizance and committed the case to trial before the ASJ, Nanded. - The court held that the continuation of the investigation by the ATS Nanded was valid under Section 6(7) of the NIA Act. - The court noted that there were no Special Courts designated under Section 22 of the NIA Act in the State of Maharashtra at the time of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet. - The Government of Maharashtra issued a notification on 26 August 2016, designating the CJM, Nanded as the remand court and the ASJ, Nanded as a Special Court for cases filed by the ATS Nanded. - The court concluded that the CJM, Nanded and ASJ, Nanded had the jurisdiction to handle the case until the NIA Mumbai took over the investigation on 8 December 2016. Conclusion: The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and order of the High Court dated 5 July 2018, holding that: 1. The ATS Nanded was not barred from continuing with its investigation until the NIA Mumbai actually took up the investigation. 2. The CJM, Nanded had the jurisdiction to commit the case to trial before the ASJ, Nanded upon the filing of the charge-sheet by the ATS Nanded, as they were the designated courts for the ATS Nanded and no Special Court had been designated under Section 22 of the NIA Act at that time. The appeals were dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
|
