SC(2021) 3 ApexCourtJudgments(SC) 169 : (2021) 4 CriCC 318
THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS Appellantv.ROOPESH Respondent
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA·29 Oct 2021·M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.
Case No.
Decided On
Judges
Bench
Advocates
Citation
Statutes
Result
UAP ActNIA ActCriminal RevisionDischarge of AccusedDivision BenchStatutory ProvisionRemand
Challenge to a High Court judgment discharging accused persons under the UAP Act and IPC, based on procedural irregularity regarding the composition of the bench hearing the revision petition.
A statutory provision (Section 21 of the NIA Act) mandates that revision applications against orders of a Special Court (not being interlocutory) be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court. Failure to adhere to this statutory requirement renders the judgment unsustainable and necessitates a remand for fresh adjudication by the correct bench.
1.ORDER
2.Leave granted.
3.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in respect to Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 732 of 2019 to 734 of 2019 by which the High Court has allowed the said Revision Petitions preferred by the respondent herein-original accused and has discharged the accused for the offences under Sections 20 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short 'UAP Act') and other offence under Section 124A of the IPC and other offences under the IPC, the State of Kerala has preferred the present appeals.
4.Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, has heavily relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector General, National Investigation Agency vs. Mohd. Hussain alias Saleem, (2014) 1 SCC 706, State of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector General, National Investigation Agency vs. Mohd. Hussain alias Saleem, (2014) 1 SCC 258 and Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 616 and relying upon Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short 'NIA Act') has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court is unsustainable. It is submitted that in view of Section 21(1) of the NIA Act, the revision application against the order passed by the Special Court refusing to discharge the accused ought to have been heard by the Division Bench as mandated under sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the NIA Act. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the present appeals and remand the matter to the High Court to decide the same revision petitions by the Division Bench of the High Court.
5.Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent is not disputing the above proposition of law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions.
6.In view of the above and the law laid down by this Court in Mohd. Hussain alias Saleem (supra) and Bikramjit Singh (supra) and even considering Section 21 of the NIA Act, any order passed by the learned Special Court, not being an interlocutory order, is subjected to appeal before the High Court and to be heard by a Bench of two Judges of the High Court. In the present case, admittedly, the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the learned Single Judge which can be said to be absolutely contrary to the statutory provision, namely, Section 21(1) and 21(2) of the NIA Act and the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions
7.In view of the above, all these appeals succeed and the common impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court passed in discharging the accused is hereby quashed and set aside and the matters are remanded to the High Court to decide the Revision Petition Nos. 732 of 2019 to 734 of 2019 afresh by the Division Bench in accordance with law and on merits. The Revision Petitions, on remand, shall be decided and disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court at the earliest and preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the present order.
8.It is made clear that we have not expressed anything on merits in favour of either parties and the common impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside solely on the aforesaid ground. It goes without saying that all the contentions/defences, which may be available to the respective parties are kept open to be considered by the Division Bench of the High Court in accordance with law and on its own merits.
9.The appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
State of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector General, National Investigation Agency vs. Mohd. Hussain alias Saleem, (2014) 1 SCC 706; State of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector General, National Investigation Agency vs. Mohd. Hussain alias Saleem, (2014) 1 SCC 258; Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 616