Jaffar Sathiq @ Babu Vs State: Treating All Country Bomb Cases Are As Terrorist Offences Would Defeat The Purpose Of The NIA Act

Date of Judgement
12th July 2021

Coram
Justices P. N. Prakash, V. Sivagnanam, and R. N. Manjula

Parties
Petitioner: Jaffar Sathiq @ Babu
Respondent: State

Overview

This case came before the present full Bench of the Madras High Court, through Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira, by way of two questions:

1. whether an application against the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge in a matter concerning UAPA shall be numbered as a bail application or an appeal?
2. Whether, it has to be posted before the Single Judge or a two judge Bench of this Court?

Facts of the Case

• The case arose from the conflicting views of two learned Judges, Justice P. Rajamanickam and Justice M.V. Muralidaran, with respect to dismissal of an application for bail for offences under Sections 447, 448, 294(b), 307, 506(II) and 120-B, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 15, 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
• Justice P. Rajamanickam opined that since the UAPA was a scheduled enactment under the National Investigation Agency Act (NIA) 2008, the procedure contemplated in Chapter IV of the said Act must apply in this case. Therefore, the judge ruled that the revision petition under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P. C.) against an order of the Sessions Court extending the remand of one of the accused for offences under the UAPA, would not apply and the same has to be filed as an appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008.
• Justice M. V. Muralidaran has a contrary view. He stated that if a case is not investigated by the NIA, the special procedure set out in the NIA Act, 2008, would not apply, and the procedure would be in accordance with the provisions of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. The learned judge relied on the judgement made in Bahadur Kora vs. State of Bihar, 2015 (2) MWN (Cr.) 305 (FB) (Pat.).
• When the matter reached the Bench of Justice A. D. Jagadish Chandira, he decided to take the issue before the Chief Justice (CJ) of Madras High Court and requested the CJ to constitute a full Bench for pronouncing an effective verdict.

Issues Involved

1. Whether an application against the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge in a matter concerning UAP Act shall be numbered as a bail application under Cr. P. C. or an appeal under the NIA Act?
2. Whether the same has to be posted before the Single Judge or a two Judges Bench of this Court?
3. Whether an application against the order passed by a District or Sessions Judge, in the matter involving a Scheduled Offence, which is annexed to the National Investigation Agency Act, should be numbered as an appeal under the NIA Act, and if it cannot be dealt under Cr. P. C. ?
4. Whether such an appeal would only lie before a Division Bench vide Section 21(2) of NIA Act?

Important Provisions

• Section 397 of Cr. P. C.: Section 397 of CrPC gives the High Courts and Sessions Judge the power of revision of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situated within its/his jurisdiction.
• Sections 21 of NIA Act: Section 21(1) reads- an appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.
• Sections 120-B, 294(b), 307, 447, 448, and 506(II) of IPC: Section 120-B provides punishment for commission of criminal conspiracy. Section 294(b) provides punishment to whoever sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place. Section 307 provides punishment for attempt to murder. Sections 447 and 448 prescribe punishment for criminal trespass and house-trespass respectively. Section 506(II) deals with the offence of criminal intimidation.
• Sections 15, 16, and 18 of UAPA: These sections deal with commission of terrorist acts, punishment for terrorist acts, and conspiracy or abetment of terrorist acts.

Court Order

The Madras High Court Bench held that the decision made in Bahadur Kora vs. State of Bihar can be presumed to have been overruled with the

Supreme Court’s observation in Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 616. In Bikramjit Singh case, the Apex Court held that every scheduled offence, irrespective of whether it is investigated by the National Investigation Agency or by the investigating agencies of the

State Government, is to be tried exclusively by Special Courts set up under the NIA Act.

Therefore, the Court held that when a Sessions Court rejects an application for bail in a matter concerning the UAPA offences, the same can be challenged only by way of an appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act, and not under CrPC. The learned judge also ruled that an appeal in this respect would lie only before a Division Bench vide Section 21(2) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

Judgement Analysis

The 16-page Order was made by Justice Prakash P. N. wherein it was held that any application against an order passed in an issue involving UAPA, which is a Scheduled Offence under the NIA Act, is to be filed by way of appeal, and not as a revision petition under Criminal Procedure Code. The three-judge Bench made a detailed analysis on the various aspects of the scope of Section 21 of the NIA Act. Though it accepted the logic behind the judgement in Bahadur Kora case, it held that the same becomes irrelevant when the Supreme Court passes a contrary verdict later (Bikramjit Singh Case).

However, it also accepted the arguments of Advocate John Sathyan, who appeared for the petitioner, that if the NIA Act is interpreted in such a liberal way, then all the cases involving a country bomb, whether it is a terrorist act or otherwise, would have be sent to the Special Courts or Sessions Courts for trial. The Bench opined that such a consequence would defeat the purpose and object of the NIA Act. Nonetheless, the full Bench stood firm in its decision, and upheld the Supreme Court’s rule in Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab. However, due to the irregularities in the provisions, the Court also remarked that the issue must be looked into by the authorities concerned.

Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s observation stands correct if we are to follow the precedents of the Judiciary. However, the Bench itself accepted the consequences that would follow if every country bomb cases, consequently, is tried by a Special Court/Sessions Court under the NIA Act. Today, even local rowdies began to use bombs for their own purposes. However, these offences cannot be termed as a terrorist act, and the object of enacting the NIA Act was to deal with cases involving terrorisms. As it is widely known, the Act came into force in the wake of the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack. One of the other objects of the Act is expeditious trial of cases that comes under its scope. Therefore, if all bomb cases are pushed towards it, this very purpose of the statute would be defeated. Though, the Bench held that cases involving UAPA must be appealed under the NIA Act, yet it also asked the relevant authorities to look into the matter as soon as possible.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement