Brief Facts
- An unclaimed black bagpack containing written posters of CPI(Maoist) and incriminating articles about the activists of CPI (Maoist) was recovered based on a written complaint filed by SI, STF Police Station. Based upon the same, an FIR was registered at STF Police Station, Kolkata for offences punishable under Sections 121A, 122, 123, 124A, 120B, IPC.
- The Respondent was arrested and Investigating Officer after the preliminary investigation filed an application before the CMM praying for addition of offences punishable under Sections 16, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39, UAPA.
- Chief Metropolitan Magistrate forwarded the matter to Chief Judge, City Sessions Court. Chief Judge passed order dated 07.04.2022, permitting addition of offences under the afore-stated sections.
- Respondent then filed a petition u/s 482, CrPC before the High Court praying for quashing of order dated 07.04.2022. During the pendency of the same, the Chief Judge passed order dated 22.09.2022 extending the period of detention of the Respondent and also permitted the investigating agency to file charge sheet beyond the period of 90 days but within 180 days.
- The High Court vide order dated 11.05.2023 quashed the proceedings of the case registered against the Respondent to the extent of the offences punishable under the provisions of UAPA, holding that only a Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 had the exclusive jurisdiction to try the offences under UAPA.
- Hence, the State of West Bengal filed the present appeal aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court dated 11.05.2023.
Issues
- Whether the Session Court had jurisdiction to permit the addition of UAPA charges when no Special Court had been notified by the State of West Bengal under Section 22 of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008?
- Whether the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had the jurisdiction to extend the detention of the accused where the right of default bail has not been claimed by the accused?
- Whether the High Court fell in grave error of law in quashing the proceedings by relying upon the provisions contained under Section 16 of NIA Act?
Held
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, thereby reversing and setting aside the High Court’s decision. The findings of the Court are summarised as under:
- It is not in dispute 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 and hence, the Sessions Court within whose jurisdiction, the offence took place which would be the Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court in the case at hand, had the power and jurisdiction to deal with the case by virtue of the sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the NIA Act.
- Under section 43D power is given to ‘the court’ to extend and authorise detention of the accused beyond a period of 90 days. As per section 2(1) (d), ‘The court’ would mean 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 Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court had the jurisdiction to pass the order of extension of detention beyond 90 days.
- Hence, the order dated 7th April, 2022, whereby the learned 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.
- 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.
- A plain reading of the provision would clearly indicate that the 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 Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court had the jurisdiction to pass the order dated 7th April, 2022. In view of the definition of the ‘Court’ provided under Section 2(1)(d) of UAPA, the jurisdictional Magistrate would also be clothed with the jurisdiction to deal with the remand of the accused albeit for a period of 90 days only because an express order of the Sessions Court or the Special Court, as the case may be, authorising remand beyond such period would be required by virtue of Section 43D(2) of UAPA.
- As a consequence of the above discussion, the impugned judgment dated 11th May, 2023 passed by learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby reversed and set aside.
- The jurisdictional Magistrate would be clothed with the jurisdiction to deal with the remand of the accused albeit for a period of 90 days only under Section 167(2) of CrPC, because for authorising remand beyond 90 days, an express order of the Sessions Court or the Special Court, as the case may be, would be required by virtue of Section 43D (2) of UAPA.
Relevant Para No.
- 29, 30, 33, 35, 36 and 38