Prima Facie Terrorist Act: Karnataka High Court Rejects Plea By 2020 Bengaluru Riots Accused Against Cognisance Taken By NIA Court

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an accused in the Bengaluru riots case of 2020, questioning the cognizance taken by Special NIA court of offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by accused Mohammed Sharif and said, “The ingredients of Section 15 (Terrorist Act) of the Act, in the considered view of this Court, are prima facie met.”

The Special court had by its dated 12-02-2021 taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 353, 333, 436, 427 and 149 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections 15, 16, 18 and 20 of UAPA.

Sharif contended Special Court bears no application of mind as there are no allegations against him that would touch upon offences punishable under UAPA. At best, the petitioner can be said to be alleged of offences punishable under the IPC and there cannot be any offence that can be alleged under the Act, it was argued.

He thus submitted that he has to be tried by the jurisdictional Court, either of  Magistrate or Sessions Judge and conducting the trial by NIA Court is contrary to law.

Findings:

Referring to the role allegedly played by the accused/petitioner as mentioned in the chargesheet filed by the police, the court said “A perusal at the contents of the charge sheet qua the petitioner would clearly indicate the ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Act.”

Further it said “The call record details of the petitioner are placed as a document to the charge sheet. The investigation established the petitioner coordinating with the movements and activities of the other accused persons. He was in constant touch and was meeting the participants who conspired and decided to carry out the violent attack on the police personnel. Therefore, there is prima facie material in the charge sheet against the petitioner for alleging the offences under the Act.”

"The allegation against the petitioner or others in common is, usage of inflammable devices as there is allegation of burning of vehicles either with explosive substance or inflammable substance, loss or damage or destruction to public property all with an intent to disturb the security of the region of the nation. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 15 of the Act, in the considered view of this Court, are prima facie met," Court added.

Rejecting the contention of the counsel for the accused that the NIA Court cannot try the offences punishable under the IPC, it said “The allegations against the petitioner do touch upon the ingredients of Section 15 of the Act and if they touch upon the ingredients of Section 15 of the Act, the alleged offences are prima facie present in the fact situation. Section 15 of the Act cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read along with Sections 16 and 18 of the Act. Therefore, the contentions so advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner do not merit acceptance.”

The court also refused to issue a direction to the special court to conclude the trial within a time frame. It held “There are a large number of accused facing trial. Therefore, this Court would not accept the submission in the peculiar facts of this case. It is for the concerned Court to regulate its procedure and to consider expeditious disposal. There cannot be a direction to dispose of the matter within a time frame.”

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Case Title: MOHAMMED SHARIFF And NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.5547 OF 2021

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 152

Date Of Order: 05-04-2023

Appearance: MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE for Petitioner.

P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP for Respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order