SYED ISMAIL AFAQ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the prosecution is that a case in Crime No.11 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 10, 13, 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ('UA(P)' Act for short) and Section 120B and 121A of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 was registered by Pulakeshinagar Police Station, Bengaluru against three accused persons. The case was subsequently transferred to the Central Crime Branch, who investigated the same and filed the charge sheet. The Special Court took cognizance of the offences, framed charges and commenced the 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 National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NIA Act' for short) on the ground that since the investigation has not been conducted by the NIA, the Special Court has no jurisdiction to conduct the trial.

(2.) On hearing learned counsel for the appellant as well as State Public Prosecutor, the Special Court passed an order dated 08.01.2018 rejecting the application filed by appellant-accused No.1 under Section 20 of NIA Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the instant appeal is filed.

(3.) Sri S. Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the impugned order passed by the Court below is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. That the Special Court had no jurisdiction to try the offences. He contends that since the investigation has not been conducted by the NIA, the Special Court has no jurisdiction to conduct the trial. In pursuance whereof, he relies on Section 13 of the NIA Act which indicates the jurisdiction of the Special Courts. In terms whereof, every scheduled offence investigated by the agency shall be tried only by the Special Court within whose jurisdiction it was committed. Therefore, since admittedly, investigation was not done by the NIA, the Special Court would not have jurisdiction to try the case. Reliance is also placed on subsection (3) of Section 16 of NIA Act to indicate that a Special Court, for the purpose of trial of any offence shall have all the powers of a Court of Session and shall try such offence, as if it were a Court of Session. Therefore, reliance is also placed on the definition of 'Special Court' as defined under Section 2(h) of NIA Act which means a Special Court constituted under Section 11 or, as the case may be, under Section 22 of the aforesaid Act. Reliance is also placed on Section 2(d) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 wherein the word 'Court' has been defined to mean a criminal Court having jurisdiction under the Code to try offences under the said Act. Therefore, it is pleaded that the 'Court' as defined under UA(P) Act is the Court that has jurisdiction to try the offences under the UA(P) Act and not the Special Court constituted under Sections 11 and 22 of the NIA Act. Therefore, the Court as defined under the UA(P) Act is quite different from the Special Court as defined under the NIA Act. Therefore, he pleads that the Special Court has no jurisdiction to try these offences.