Case Note & Summary
The State of West Bengal appealed against the Calcutta High Court's order quashing proceedings under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) against the respondent, Jayeeta Das. The case originated from an FIR registered on January 1, 2022, based on a complaint about an abandoned backpack containing CPI(Maoist) posters and incriminating articles. The respondent was arrested on March 29, 2022, and produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Calcutta. The investigating officer sought addition of UAPA offences, which the CMM forwarded to the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta. On April 7, 2022, the Chief Judge allowed the addition of UAPA offences and remanded the accused to police custody. Subsequently, on September 22, 2022, the Chief Judge extended the detention period to 180 days under Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA. The respondent filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court, which quashed the proceedings to the extent of UAPA offences, holding that only a Special Court constituted under the NIA Act had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. The Court held that under Section 22(3) of the NIA Act, when no Special Court is constituted by the State Government, the Sessions Court has exclusive jurisdiction to try UAPA offences. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate retains power to remand the accused. The High Court erred in relying on Section 16 of the NIA Act, which applies only to Special Courts constituted by the Central Government. The Court also noted that the respondent did not apply for default bail, so any irregularity in remand was cured. The matter was remitted to the Sessions Court for trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction - Addition of UAPA Offences - Sections 16, 22 NIA Act, 2008; Sections 43D(2)(b) UAPA, 1967 - The issue was whether the Sessions Court could add UAPA offences and extend remand when no Special Court was notified by the State Government - The Supreme Court held that under Section 22(3) of the NIA Act, the Sessions Court is the exclusive trial court for UAPA offences when no Special Court is constituted by the State Government, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate retains remand jurisdiction - The High Court erred in quashing proceedings based on Section 16 of the NIA Act, which applies only to Special Courts constituted by the Central Government (Paras 18-30). B) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Section 43D(2)(b) UAPA, 1967 - The accused did not apply for default bail after 90 days and before charge sheet - The Supreme Court noted that the right to default bail is not automatic and must be claimed; since no application was made, the irregularity in remand stood cured (Para 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application for addition of UAPA offences and extension of remand period when no Special Court had been notified by the State Government under Section 22(1) of the NIA Act, and whether the Magistrate could remand the accused after UAPA offences were added.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated May 11, 2023, and restored the proceedings including the order dated April 7, 2022 passed by the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta. The Sessions Court was permitted to proceed with the trial for all offences including those under UAPA.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Sessions Court under UAPA
- Power to add offences under UAPA
- Role of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in remand
- Default bail under Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA
- Interpretation of Sections 16 and 22 of NIA Act
