- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Treating Ordinary Country Bomb...
Treating Ordinary Country Bomb Cases As Terrorist Offences Will Defeat Purpose Of NIA Act : Madras High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
18 July 2021 10:11 AM IST
The Madras High Court has expressed concern about the difficulties which will be caused by sending all cases involving scheduled offences under the National Investigation Agency Act to the 'Special Courts' notified under the NIA Act.Since Explosive Substances Act is also a schedueld offence under the NIA Act, every case involving the offences under the Explosive Substances Act will have to go...
The Madras High Court has expressed concern about the difficulties which will be caused by sending all cases involving scheduled offences under the National Investigation Agency Act to the 'Special Courts' notified under the NIA Act.
Since Explosive Substances Act is also a schedueld offence under the NIA Act, every case involving the offences under the Explosive Substances Act will have to go to special courts under the NIA Act. In this context, the High Court noted that the Explosive Substances Act is routinely invoked in gangster crimes in Tamil Nadu as "ordinary rowdy gangs have now graduated from using knives to country bombs which they find easier to carry and hurl than traditional weapons".
The Court further noted that in the year 2019, 139 FIRs with offences under Explosive Substances Act were registered.
A full bench comprising Justices P N Prakashh, V Sivagnam, RN Manjula was considering a referred question whether the rejection of bail by a Sessions Court under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) must be challenged by way of an appeal under the NIA Act, even if the case was being investigated by the state police and not the NIA. Following the Supreme Court verdict in the case Bikramjit Singh vs State of Punjab, the bench held that such orders can only be challenged by way of appeal under the NIA Act.
At the same time, the bench highlighted certain practical problems created by following this interpretation of NIA Act and UAPA Act.
Advocate John Sathyam, counsel for the petitioner, drew the court's attention to the fact that even Explosive Substances Act is a scheduled offence under the NIA Act. This would mean that final reports will have to be filed before the Sessions Court in routine country bomb cases where UAPA have been invoked.
If the State police were to go by the strict mandates of the NIA Act, all FIRs under Explosive Substances Act should have to intimated to the Central Government. Thus, the Central Government will be loaded with plethora of such reports from various State Governments all over the country which they have to analyze and take a decision on a case-to-case basis as to which of the cases have to be dealt with by the NIA and which have to be left with the State police to proceed with the investigation.
The Station House Officers will have to file the final reports directly before the Special Courts or Courts of Session,
"In our considered opinion, the very purpose and object of the NIA Act would stand defeated if all and sundry run of the mill country bomb cases are treated as terrorist offences and sent to Special Courts/Sessions Courts for trial", the Court observed.
It underscored that the Sessions Courts are already overburdened with routine judicial work.
"The very purpose of the NIA Act, 2008 is to expedite the trial of serious offences, enumerated in the schedule, which would be defeated if one Court is jurisdictionally overloaded with several enactments conferring special jurisdiction. This is a practical issue which,if not addressed with reasonable dispatch, would defeat the very purpose of having Special Courts", the Court observed.
The Court also flagged another anomaly as follows :
"That apart, we find yet another incongruity, inasmuch as when a scheduled offence is under investigation by the C.B.I., it neither falls under the category of N.I.A. nor under the category of State agency, with the result that the NIA Act would not apply to such cases. The final report of the CBI will have to be filed only before the regular jurisdictional Magistrate when it discloses a scheduled offence in the hypothetical case referred to above".
Mr. R.Sankaranarayanan, Additional Solicitor General, said that he will draw the attention of Union Ministry of Law and Justice to these aspects.
"We trust and hope that these issues would be looked at by the relevant stakeholders with the seriousness that they deserve", the High Court observed.
