The High Court of Calcutta, while disposing of a petition filed about a substantial question of law framed during the proceedings under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, held that the senior most Additional Sessions Judge, Jangipur is the appropriate court having the power to deal with the relevant case under Sections 489B/489C of I.P.C. and sections 15 and 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Brief Facts:
Initially, two cases were registered under Sections 489B/489C of I.P.C. Subsequently, sections 15 and 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were added when the investigation was taken over by Special Task Force. After the addition of charges under the Act 1967, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate sent the case to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge who held that only a court constituted under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 had the jurisdiction to try the case. The learned Special Court observed that since the investigation of the cases under reference was not taken over by the NIA as per the provisions under Section 6 of the NIA Act, 2008, the STF was obliged to carry on the investigation. The case record was sent back to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who referred the same for decision to this Court under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the reference may be answered appropriately by this court.
Contentions of the Amicus Curiae:
The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that neither the Central Government nor the State Government has designated any court as a Special Court under the provisions of the NIA Act in the sub-division Jangipur of the District – Murshidabad. The learned Amicus Curiae contended that as there is no court designated under the provisions of the NIA Act or UAPA Act, 1967 as a Special Court, the jurisdictional sessions court has the power to entertain the application for remand in view of provisions of the UAPA Act, 1967.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the question is when there is no special court constituted under the NIA Act, 2008, either by the Central Government or by the State Government in the sub-division of Jangipur, then which court shall take cognizance of the offence or the remand file of the accused who is charged with the commission of a scheduled offence under UAPA Act, 1967 within the jurisdiction of Jangipur. No special court either under Section 11 of the NIA Act or under Section 22 of the said Act has been constituted.
The Court observed that when there is no special court constituted under Section 11 or Section 22 of the NIA Act, the jurisdictional Sessions Court has the power under the Act, 1967. The Court said that the senior most Additional Sessions Judge, Jangipur is the appropriate court having power to deal with the relevant case under Sections 489B/489C of I.P.C. and sections 15 and 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, corresponding to the case of the learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, disposing of the petition, held that the learned Sessions Judge inform the same to the concerned courts at the Jangipur sub-division.
Case Title: Sabiruddin Sk. & Anr. v The State of West Bengal
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee and Hon’ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray
Case No.: CRM (DB) 458 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Madhusudan Sur
Amicus Curiae: Mr. Ayan Bhattacharyya