Ankush Vipan Kapoor vs National Investigation Agency

2.1 In the present case, the offences registered in FIR No.1/2018 at PS ATS, Ahmedabad, Gujarat (Gujarat case) and the offences registered against the petitioner herein under FIR No.20/2020 and under FIR No.23/2020 all being under the NDPS Act and in view of the connectedness of the offence under NDPS Act with the Scheduled Offence in Gujarat FIR No.01/2018 in respect of which the Central Government was of the opinion that the provisions of ss.17 and 18 of the UAPA (Scheduled Offences under the NIA Act) were also attracted as a result, the Central Government directed the NIA to investigate into the Scheduled Offences (ss.17 and 18 of the UAPA) on the basis of the initial order passed under subsection (5) of s.6 of the NIA Act on 29.06.2021. [Para 8.6]

2.2 Accordingly, when the NIA was investigating into the Scheduled Offences in the Gujarat case, it forwarded reports to the Central Government in respect of FIR No.23/2020 registered at Police Station STF, District STF Wing, Amritsar, Punjab and FIR No.20/2020 registered at PS STF, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab under the provisions of the NDPS Act – On a consideration of the said reports and on the strength of s.8 of the NIA Act, the Central Government passed orders to investigate into the offences alleged against the petitioner herein on the premise that those offences have a connection with the Scheduled Offences. [Para 8.7]

2.3 Impugned orders of the Central Government are in accordance with sub-section (5) of s.6 r/w s.8 – There is a connection, nexus and a link which has been brought out between the Scheduled Offences investigated by the NIA u/ss.17 and 18 of UAPA pursuant to order dated 29.06.2020 (Annexure P-4) and subsequently under the orders dated 28.06.2021 (Annexure P-6) and 12.10.2021 (Annexure P-9) insofar as the offences alleged against the petitioner herein under the provisions of the NDPS Act are concerned Annexures P-6 and P-9 were issued by the Central Government by exercising power u/sub-section (5) of s.6 r/w s.8 of the NIA Act and in continuation of Annexure P-4 – No reason to quash the impugned orders at Annexures P-4, P-6 and P-9 issued by respondent No.1 – NIA rightly sought cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner by the High Court in respect of the offences alleged against him under the NIA Act in the State of Punjab, as the said offences are now being investigated by the NIA and there is also transfer of the trial from the Punjab to Gujarat, to be tried along with Scheduled Offences u/ss.17 and 18 of the UAPA as per s.14 of the NIA Act. [Paras 8.9, 8.10]

National Investigation Agency, 2008 – ss.8, 6(4), (5) – Expression “the accused” used in s.8 – Interpretation – Scope of the powers of the NIA u/s.8 – Whether, the expression “the accused” in s.8 refers to only the accused in respect of whom a Scheduled Offence is being investigated or it includes any other accused whose name would emerge during the course of investigation of a Scheduled Offence and who has committed an offence which has a connection with the Scheduled Offence: Held: The expression “the accused” in s.8 cannot be restricted in its meaning and connotation to only the accused in respect of whom investigation is being carried out pursuant to sub-sections (4) and (5) of s.6 in respect of a Scheduled Offence – It could also include any other accused who has committed any other offence provided that other offence committed by any other accused has a connection or a nexus with the Scheduled Offence which is detected during the course of investigation of any Scheduled Offence – While investigating the accused regarding Scheduled Offences, if the NIA submits a report about some other accused who may have also committed certain offences connected with the Scheduled Offences under investigation then, the Central Government on a consideration of such a report may exercise suo motu powers and direct the NIA to also investigate the other accused also provided the offences alleged against the other accused are offences, having a connection with the Scheduled Offence already under investigation – This would be in the realm of a joint investigation into Scheduled Offences which may have occurred in different parts of the country but having a connection with other offences also – Thus, the expression “the accused” would have to be given an expansive and enlarged meaning. [Paras 7.6, 7.10]

National Investigation Agency, 2008 – s.8 – While investigating the accused of a Scheduled Offence, any other accused could also be investigated on the strength of s.8 – Conditions precedent for – Enumerated. [Para 7.12]

Words and Phrases – National Investigation Agency, 2008 – s.8 – Use of “the” before a noun vis-à-vis “a” or “an”: Held: The word “the” used before a noun “accused” in s.8 of the NIA Act has a particularizing effect, as opposed to “a” or “an” – However, “a” and “the” sometimes have to be interchangeably interpreted having regard to the context in which it is found and in order to give it a contextual connotation so as to advance the object and purpose of the provision – s.8 has to be given a purposive and meaningful interpretation, one which would advance the object of s.6 and other provisions of the Act and cannot be read in a curtailed and narrow fashion. [Para 7.11] Illicit Drug Trade and Abuse – Effects – Debilitating impact of drug trade and drug abuse, an immediate and serious concern for India – Prevention of drug abuse – Role of parents, schools and colleges, Local Communities and NGOs, NALSA, NCPCR and NCB – Discussed – Word of caution for the youth.