Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – FIR registered u/ss. 121A, 122, 123, 124A, 120B of IPC – I.O. filed an application for addition of charges u/ss. 16, 18, 18B, 20, 38 and 39 of UAPA – CMM forwarded the matter to Chief Judge, City Sessions Court – The Chief Judge by order dated 07.04.2022 permitted addition of offences under the provisions of UAPA – Legality: Held: A bare perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 22 of NIA Act would make it clear that until a Special Court is constituted by the State Government under sub-Section (1) of Section 22, in case of registration of any offence punishable under UAPA, the Court of Sessions of the division, in which the offence has been committed, would have the jurisdiction as conferred by the Act on a Special Court and a fortiori, it would have all the powers to follow the procedure provided under Chapter IV of the NIA Act – Admittedly, the present case involves investigation by the State police, and therefore, the provisions of Section 22 would be applicable insofar as the issue of jurisdiction of the Court to try the offences is concerned – Further, it is not in dispute that the State of West Bengal had not exercised the power conferred upon it by Section 22 of the NIA Act for constituting a Special Court for trial of offences set out in the Schedule to the NIA Act and hence, the Sessions Court within whose jurisdiction, the offence took place which would be the Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court in the case at hand, had the power and jurisdiction to deal with the case by virtue of the sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the NIA Act – Hence, the order dated 07.04.2022, whereby the Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court permitted the addition of the offences under UAPA to the case does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. [Paras 24, 25, 29, 30]
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Extension of remand by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate beyond the period of 90 days – Legality:
Held: Under the proviso to Section 43D(2), the Court has been given the power to extend and authorise detention of the accused beyond a period of 90 days as provided u/s. 167(2) CrPC – A plain reading of Section 2(1)(d) of UAPA would clearly indicate that the same admits to the jurisdiction of a normal criminal Court and also includes a Special Court constituted under Section 11 or Section
22 of the NIA Act –In view of the definition of the ‘Court’ provided under Section 2(1)(d) of UAPA, the jurisdictional Magistrate would also be clothed with the jurisdiction to deal with the remand of the accused albeit for a period of 90 days only because an express order of the Sessions Court or the Special Court, as the case may be, authorising remand beyond such period would be required by virtue of Section 43D(2) of UAPA – Hence, to the extent the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate extended the remand of the accused beyond the period of 90 days, the proceedings were grossly illegal. [Paras 33-36]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.