Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused No.1 against an order of the Special Court (NIA) dated 08.01.2018 in Special C.C. No. 330/2015, rejecting his application under Section 20 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act). The appellant sought to set aside the order and transfer the case to a Sessions Court having jurisdiction, on the ground that the investigation was not conducted by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The background of the case is that a crime was registered at Pulakeshinagar Police Station, Bengaluru, being Crime No. 11 of 2015, for offences punishable under Sections 3, 10, 13, 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UA(P) Act), Sections 120B and 121A of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, against three accused persons. The case was subsequently transferred to the Central Crime Branch (CCB), which investigated and filed a charge sheet. The Special Court took cognizance, framed charges, and commenced trial. At the stage when P.Ws.1 and 2 had been examined, the appellant-accused No.1 filed an application under Section 20 of the NIA Act, contending that since the investigation was not carried out by the NIA, the Special Court lacked jurisdiction and the case should be transferred to a Sessions Court. The Special Court rejected the application, leading to the present appeal. The legal issue before the High Court was whether the Special Court under the NIA Act has jurisdiction to try the case when the investigation was not conducted by the NIA. The appellant argued that Section 20 of the NIA Act requires that the investigation must be by the NIA for the Special Court to have jurisdiction. The respondent-State contended that the Special Court has jurisdiction to try offences under the UA(P) Act regardless of the investigating agency. The High Court analyzed the provisions of the NIA Act, particularly Section 20, and held that the Special Court is empowered to try offences under the UA(P) Act and other scheduled offences, and there is no requirement that the investigation must be conducted by the NIA. The court observed that Section 20 of the NIA Act does not impose any such condition. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the Special Court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction of Special Court - Section 20 of National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - The appellant-accused No.1 challenged the order of the Special Court rejecting his application under Section 20 of the NIA Act seeking transfer of the case to a Sessions Court on the ground that the investigation was not conducted by the NIA. The High Court held that the Special Court has jurisdiction to try offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, irrespective of whether the investigation was conducted by the NIA or any other agency. The court reasoned that Section 20 of the NIA Act does not mandate that the investigation must be by the NIA for the Special Court to have jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has jurisdiction to try the case when the investigation was not conducted by the National Investigation Agency?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the Special Court rejecting the application under Section 20 of the NIA Act.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Special Court under NIA Act
- Section 20 of NIA Act
- Transfer of case to Sessions Court
- Investigation by NIA not mandatory for trial by Special Court
