Summary
For a State-police UAPA investigation, the divisional Sessions Court exercises Special Court jurisdiction until the State designates one under NIA Act Section 22. A centrally constituted court did not displace that arrangement here. Addition of UAPA offences was valid, although the Magistrate could not authorise detention beyond ninety days. No default-bail application had been made; consequences of illegal remand were left for appropriate proceedings. The High Court’s quashing judgment was set aside.
Issues
- Which court had jurisdiction in a State-police UAPA case without a State-designated Special Court.
- Whether a centrally notified Special Court displaced the Section 22(3) Sessions Court.
- What limits governed the Magistrate’s remand power and consequences of the unclaimed default-bail opportunity.
Provisions considered
- Sections 11 and 22(1), (3), National Investigation Agency Act, 2008The State-police case attracted Section 22; absence of a State-designated court vested Special Court powers in the divisional Sessions Court despite the separate Central notification. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)
- Sections 2(1)(d) and 43D(2), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967The jurisdictional Magistrate could deal with remand up to ninety days; detention beyond required the competent Sessions/Special Court’s statutory authorisation on the prescribed basis. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37)
- Sections 167(2) and 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court’s wholesale quashing was reversed; no default-bail claim had been made, leaving the separate consequences of unlawful remand for proper proceedings. (¶¶ 8, 9, 16, 36, 37, 38, 39)
Held
- The investigation was by State police, so Section 22 governed forum competence. Until the State designates a Special Court, Section 22(3) gives the Sessions Court of the relevant division the Act’s Special Court powers and procedure. The Central Government’s Section 11 notification did not establish the missing State-designated forum for this purpose. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- The Chief Judge, City Sessions Court therefore had jurisdiction to permit addition of the UAPA offences. The High Court’s contrary jurisdictional basis for quashing the UAPA proceedings was erroneous. (¶¶ 29, 30, 36, 38)
- Under UAPA’s modified Section 167 scheme, the Magistrate could address remand only up to ninety days. Extension beyond that period required the competent Sessions or Special Court under Section 43D(2), with the statutory prosecution report and reasons; the Magistrate’s extensions beyond ninety days were illegal. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37)
- The Court recorded that the chargesheet was filed even beyond 180 days, but the accused had never applied for default bail. It did not grant such bail or treat unlawful remand as a reason to quash the prosecution. Effect on evidence collected during that period and other remedies for illegal remand were left to proper proceedings before the trial court at the appropriate stage. (¶¶ 16, 37)
- The State’s appeal was allowed and the High Court’s quashing judgment reversed and set aside, with pending applications disposed of. The ruling addressed jurisdiction and remand, not final guilt under UAPA. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40)
Result
State’s appeal allowed; High Court quashing judgment set aside. Sessions Court jurisdiction upheld; consequences and remedies relating to illegal remand left for appropriate proceedings.