SUKHLAL SOREN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have assailed the orders passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Paschim Medinipur on 9/8/2023, 17/8/2023 and 28/8/2023 in connection with sessions trial no. 11(9) of 2011 under Sec. 121/121A/122/124A/302 read with sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code, sec. 16 (1) (a)/16(1)(b)/18/38/39 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 under sec. 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and under sec. 25(I) (b) of the Arms Act.

(2.) Written complaint was lodged against the petitioners and others before Binpur Police Station which was registered as Binpur Police Station case no.12 dtd. 15/2/2010 under Sec. 147/ 148 /149 / 186/302/333/353/326/307/120B/121/121A/122/122A/124A/435/ 436 /427/379 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sec. 25/27//35 of the Arms Act, under sec. 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and under sec. 9(B) of the Explosives Act. Investigation was taken up by the CID, West Bengal and the petitioners were arrested and produced before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram who remanded the petitioners/accused to custody from time to time. The Investigating Officer filed an application before the Magistrate seeking addition of sec. 16(1) (a)/16(1)(b)/18/20/38/39 of the UAPA which was allowed by an order passed on 3/5/2010. Charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 21/5/2010 and the Learned ACJM took cognizance of offences under the Indian Penal Code. The Learned ACJM refrained from taking cognizance of the offence under the UAPA for want of proper sanction from the competent authority. Such sanction was subsequently granted by the State Government following which supplementary charge sheets submitted by the Investigating Officer were taken cognizance of. The case was committed to the Learned Sessions Judge, Pashchim Medinipur by the Learned ACJM and the Learned Sessions Judge took cognizance by an order passed on 9/9/2011 and transferred the case to the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Paschim Medinipur for disposal, by an order passed on 24/11/2011.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the offences alleged under the UAPA fall within the category of scheduled offences under sec. 2(g) of The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the Learned ACJM had no authority to deal with the matter or remand the accused-petitioners to custody. The accused ought to have been produced before the Special Court and in absence of a Special Court, the Court of Sessions who has been authorised to exercise all powers and jurisdiction of the Special Court in terms of sec. 22(3) of the NIA Act. The Learned Sessions Judge erred in law in transferring the case to the Learned Additional Sessions Judge for trial since such delegation of power is not sanctioned by the NIA Act. Such grievance was ventilated by the petitioners before the Learned ADJ who, by the orders impugned, turned down the prayer of the petitioners. Admittedly trial of the case is on the verge of conclusion and argument is being heard.