9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 880 - SC - Indian LawsCancellation of bail granted - criminal conspiracy - crossborder narco-terrorism involving a huge recovery of 500 kgs of heroin, which was stated to have been smuggled into India through Gujarat and then into Punjab in a meticulously planned manner - scheduled offences - Legality of the Central Government's orders transferring investigation to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) - can the NIA investigate any other accused person who, although not being investigated for any Scheduled Offences could be investigated by NIA because there exists a link between the two namely, Scheduled and non-scheduled offences, thereby connecting every co-accused? HELD THAT - On a plain reading of Section 8, it is clear that the said Section has to be read in continuation of what has been stated in subsection (5) of Section 6 of the NIA Act. Once the Central Government directs the NIA to investigate a Scheduled Offence and during the course of such investigation of a Scheduled Offence against an accused, it becomes necessary for the NIA to also investigate any other offence which the said accused is alleged to have committed, then such offence could also be investigated provided that other offence to be investigated is connected with the Scheduled Offence. The expression the accused in Section 8 of the NIA Act needs to be interpreted contextually. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said expression has to be read narrowly and as per its plain meaning as referring to only the accused in respect of whom a Scheduled Offence is being investigated by the NIA and if such an accused has committed any other offence which is connected to the Scheduled Offence then such other offence could also be investigated by the NIA provided there is a connection with the Scheduled Offence - The expression Agency may also investigate any other offence which the accused is alleged to have committed has no doubt to be read with the rigour of if the offence is connected with the Scheduled Offence . In other words, if any other offence is connected with the Scheduled Offence, then the NIA may investigate such other offence which the accused is alleged to have committed provided there is a connection of such other offence with the Scheduled Offence. Whether, the expression the accused in Section 8 of the NIA Act has to refer to only the accused in respect of whom a Scheduled Offence is being investigated or it could include any other accused whose name would emerge during the course of investigation of a Scheduled Offence and who has committed an offence which has a connection with the Scheduled Offence? - HELD THAT - The nexus or connection between any other offence and the Scheduled Offence is of critical importance and must be present in order to enable the NIA to investigate any other offence committed by an accused in connection with the Scheduled Offence. The connection between a Scheduled Offence and any other offence being established would enable the NIA to investigate the accused of committing any other offence which is connected with the Scheduled Offence. Once there is such a connection between a Scheduled Offence and a non-scheduled offence then, for all practical purposes the non-scheduled offence would come within the connection of a Scheduled Offence. Therefore, it is held that the accused who may have committed a non-scheduled offence having a connection with a Scheduled Offence can be investigated by the NIA in respect of a non-scheduled offence. It is reiterated that, while investigating the accused regarding Scheduled Offences, if the NIA submits a report about some other accused who may have also committed certain offences connected with the Scheduled Offences under investigation then, the Central Government on a consideration of such a report may exercise suo motu powers and direct the NIA to also investigate the other accused also provided the offences alleged against the other accused are offences, having a connection with the Scheduled Offence already under investigation - on the aforesaid basis NIA would be enabled to also carry out an investigation of any other accused who has committed an offence connected with the Scheduled Offence already being investigated. This would be in the realm of a joint investigation into Scheduled Offences which may have occurred in different parts of the country but having a connection with other offences also. The offences registered in FIR No.1/2018 dated 12.08.2018 at PS ATS, Ahmedabad, Gujarat (Gujarat case) and the offences registered against the petitioner herein under FIR No.20/2020 dated 29.01.2020 and under FIR No.23/2020 dated 31.01.2020 all being under the NDPS Act and in view of the connectedness of the offence under NDPS Act with the Scheduled Offence in Gujarat FIR No.01/2018 in respect of which the Central Government was of the opinion that the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA (Scheduled Offences under the NIA Act) were also attracted as a result, the Central Government directed the NIA to investigate into the Scheduled Offences (Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA) on the basis of the initial order passed under sub-section (5) of Section 6 of the NIA Act on 29.06.2021. When the NIA was investigating into the Scheduled Offences in the Gujarat case, it forwarded reports to the Central Government in respect of FIR No.23/2020 registered at Police Station STF, District STF Wing, Amritsar, Punjab dated 31.01.2020 and FIR No.20/2020 dated 29.01.2020 registered at PS STF, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab under the provisions of the NDPS Act. On a consideration of the said reports and on the strength of Section 8 of the NIA Act, the Central Government passed orders to investigate into the offences alleged against the petitioner herein on the premise that those offences have a connection with the Scheduled Offences. The NIA was justified in seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner herein by the High Court in respect of the offences alleged against him under the provisions of the NIA Act in the State of Punjab. This is because the said offences are now being investigated by the NIA and there is also transfer of the trial from the concerned Special Court in the State of Punjab to the Special Court in the State of Gujarat, to be tried along with Scheduled Offences under Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA as per Section 14 of the NIA Act. Therefore, the special leave petition is also liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. The interim relief granted to the petitioner vide order dated 07.03.2024 and extended from time to time stands vacated.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Central Government's orders transferring investigation to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). 2. Connection between the offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). 3. Validity of the cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. 4. Interpretation of Section 8 of the NIA Act in investigating connected offences. 5. Broader implications of drug trafficking and substance abuse. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Central Government's Orders: The petitioner challenged the orders dated 29.06.2020, 28.06.2021, and 12.10.2021 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which transferred the investigation of FIRs primarily registered under the NDPS Act to the NIA. The petitioner argued that the offences under the NDPS Act are non-scheduled offences under the NIA Act, and thus, the transfer of investigation was illegal and ultra vires. The court, however, found that the Central Government acted within its powers under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act, as the offences under Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA, which are scheduled offences, were also attracted. The orders were thus held to be valid. 2. Connection Between NDPS Act and UAPA Offences: The court examined whether the offences under the NDPS Act could be connected to the scheduled offences under the UAPA, thereby justifying the NIA's investigation. It was found that the offences in FIR No.01/2018 in Gujarat, involving cross-border smuggling of heroin, were linked to the offences in Punjab under the NDPS Act. The NIA's investigation revealed a larger conspiracy involving narco-terrorism, which justified the invocation of UAPA provisions. The court held that the connection between the offences was sufficiently established. 3. Validity of the Cancellation of Bail: The petitioner contested the High Court's order cancelling the bail granted to him. The court noted that the cancellation was justified due to the serious nature of the offences and the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the full extent of the drug syndicate. The transfer of investigation to the NIA and the addition of UAPA charges warranted a re-evaluation of the bail conditions. The court upheld the High Court's decision to cancel the bail. 4. Interpretation of Section 8 of the NIA Act: The court addressed the interpretive challenge of Section 8 of the NIA Act, which allows the NIA to investigate any other offence connected to a scheduled offence. The court rejected a narrow interpretation that would limit the investigation to only those accused of scheduled offences. Instead, it held that the expression "the accused" in Section 8 should be interpreted expansively to include any accused whose offences are connected to the scheduled offences under investigation. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of the NIA Act to effectively investigate and prosecute offences affecting national security. 5. Broader Implications of Drug Trafficking and Substance Abuse: The judgment highlighted the pervasive issue of drug trafficking and substance abuse in India, emphasizing the need for coordinated efforts by the government, communities, and individuals to combat this menace. The court underscored the societal impact of drug abuse, including its contribution to crime and terrorism, and called for preventive measures, awareness campaigns, and rehabilitation efforts to protect vulnerable populations, especially the youth. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition and the special leave petition, upholding the Central Government's orders and the High Court's decision to cancel the petitioner's bail. The judgment affirmed the NIA's authority to investigate connected offences and emphasized the importance of addressing the broader issue of drug trafficking and substance abuse.
|
