Summary
The Court upheld continuation of the ATS investigation until the NIA actually took it over, rather than treating the Central direction or case renumbering alone as a completed transfer. The ATS charge-sheet and ensuing committal therefore stood. On the particular notification history, with no State-designated NIA Special Court then in place, the designated Nanded courts retained jurisdiction until takeover. After takeover, the NIA Special Court had exclusive trial jurisdiction. Both appeals were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether a Central direction to the NIA immediately prevented the State ATS from continuing investigation before actual takeover.
- Whether the charge-sheet before the CJM and committal to the ASJ were invalid on the particular court-designation history.
Provisions considered
- Section 6, as applicable before 2 August 2019; Section 10, National Investigation Agency Act, 2008Sections 6(6) and 6(7) required harmonious reading: the State police had to continue investigating until the NIA actually took up the case, avoiding an investigative hiatus. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 33, 37, 38, 39, 48, 50)
- Sections 11(1), 13(1), 16(1) and 22, as applicable, National Investigation Agency Act, 2008The Court considered Special Court jurisdiction, the enabling power of direct cognizance and the absence of a State-designated NIA Special Court at the relevant time. On the particular facts the existing remand and trial designations sustained committal. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 40, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50)
Held
- Section 6(7) imposed a duty, rather than discretion, to continue investigation until actual NIA takeover. The direction to the NIA and the State’s duty to transmit records did not permit a gap in investigation pending that takeover. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 27, 33)
- Renumbering an FIR did not itself establish commencement of NIA investigation. Investigation involved actual steps on the information. Here the NIA received the case papers on 8 December 2016; the ATS had filed its charge-sheet and the CJM had committed the case before that date. Those acts fell within the continuing statutory mandate. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39)
- The direct-cognizance power in Section 16(1) did not by itself invalidate the preceding ATS charge-sheet or committal. The Court distinguished the cited default-bail authorities in light of the absence of a Section 22 Special Court at the relevant time and the unchallenged notification designating the CJM for remand and ASJ for ATS trials. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50)
- Upon the NIA’s actual takeover, the Special Court constituted under Section 11 had sole trial jurisdiction. Transfer to that Court did not invalidate the earlier steps upheld on this record. (¶¶ 48, 49, 50)
Result
Both appeals dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed, including the upheld pre-takeover proceedings and transfer to the NIA Special Court. Pending applications disposed of.