Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal filed by the State of West Bengal for assailing the legality and validity of the judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court, wherein the Court held that only a Special Court constituted by the Central Government or the State Government as per the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (‘NIA Act’) had the exclusive jurisdiction to try the offences under UAPA, the Division Bench of BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment, held that when the State has not constituted a Special Court for trial of offences set out in the Schedule to the NIA Act, the Sessions Court within whose jurisdiction, the offence took place has the power and jurisdiction to deal with the case by virtue of the Section 22 (3) of the NIA Act.
Background:
Based on written complaint about recovery of an unclaimed black coloured bag pack lying abandoned at Sahid Minar containing some written posters of Communist Party of India (Maoist) (CPI) and some incriminating articles about the activities of CPI, an FIR came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 121-A, 122, 123, 124-A, 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The accused was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (‘CMM’). The Investigating Officer conducted preliminary investigation and thereafter filed an application in the Court of CMM praying for addition of offences punishable under Sections 16, 18, 18-B, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’). This application was allowed by the Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court vide an order dated 07-04-2022. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(‘CrPC’) before the High Court for quashing the order passed by the Chief Judge and all subsequent orders passed by the CMM. While the aforesaid petition was pending, the Chief Judge passed an order dated 22-09-2022 extending the period of detention of accused up to 180 days under Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA and permitted the investigating agency to file charge sheet beyond the period of 90 days but within 180 days.
The High Court quashed the proceedings of the case registered against the accused to the extent of the offences punishable under the provisions of UAPA, holding that only a Special Court constituted by the Central Government or the State Government as per the NIA Act had the exclusive jurisdiction to try the offences under UAPA.
Issue: Whether the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta had the jurisdiction to pass the order dated 7-04-2022?
Analysis and Decision:
The Court referred to sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the NIA Act, and noted that until a Special Court is constituted by the State Government under sub-Section (1) of Section 22, in case of registration of any offence punishable under UAPA, the Court of Sessions of the division, in which the offence has been committed, would have the jurisdiction as conferred by the Act on a Special Court and a fortiori, it would have all the powers to follow the procedure provided under Chapter IV of the NIA Act.
The Court said that the present case involves investigation by the State police, and therefore, the provisions of Section 22 NIA Act would be applicable insofar as the issue of jurisdiction of the Court to try the offences is concerned.
After perusing the Gazette Notification dated 29-04-2011, the Court noted that the Special Court was constituted by the “Central Government” in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the NIA Act.
The Court said that the State of West Bengal has so far not exercised the power conferred upon it by Section 22 of the NIA Act for constituting a Special Court for trial of offences set out in the Schedule to the NIA Act. Hence, the Sessions Court within whose jurisdiction, the offence took place which would be the Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court, had the power and jurisdiction to deal with the case by virtue of the Section 22 (3) of the NIA Act.
Hence, the Court held that the order dated 07-04-2022, whereby the Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court permitted the addition of the offences under UAPA to the case does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
Moreover, the Court said that Section 43-D of UAPA provides a modified scheme for the application of Section 167 CrPC. Further, it stated that under the proviso to Section 43D(2), the Court has been given the power to extend and authorise detention of the accused beyond a period of 90 days as provided under Section 167(2) CrPC.
After taking note of the definition of the term “Court” under Section 2(1)(d) of UAPA, the Court noted that same admits to the jurisdiction of a normal criminal Court and also includes a Special Court constituted under Section 11 or Section 22 of the NIA Act. Hence, the Court held that he Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court had the jurisdiction to pass the order dated 7-04-2022.
The Court further said that as per the definition of ‘Court’, the Jurisdictional Magistrate would be the clothed with the jurisdiction to deal with the remand of the accused even though for 90 days only, because an express order of the Sessions Court or Special Court, authorising remand beyond such period would be required by virtue of Section 43 d (2) UAPA. Hence, the Court held that to the extent the CMM extended the accused’s remand beyond 90 days, the proceedings were grossly illegal.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned judgment.
[State of West Bengal v Jayeeta Das, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 550, decided on 18-04-2024]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Sandeep Mehta
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner(s): Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Rohit Bansal, Adv. . Kshitij Singh, Adv. Sohhom Sau, Adv.
For Respondent(s) R. Mahadevan, Adv. V. Balaji, Adv. C. Kannan, Adv.Nishant Sharma, Adv. Ms. Adviteeya, Adv. , Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
