| Headnote |
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008: s.6 – Investigation by NIA – If the Central government is of the opinion that the offence is a scheduled offence and it is a fit case to be investigated by the NIA, it shall direct the NIA to investigate the offence – Upon the issuance of a direction by the Central government, two consequences emanate under sub-Section (6) of s.6: (a) the State government and any police officer of the State government investigating the offence shall not proceed with the investigation; and (b) the relevant documents and records must be transmitted to the NIA forthwith – Sub-Section (7) of s.6 contains a declaration that till the NIA “takes up the investigation of the case”, it shall be the duty of the office in-charge of the police station to continue the investigation – The provisions of sub-Sections (6) and (7) of s.6 must be read together and in harmony in order to fulfill the purpose and intent of the Parliament in a holistic manner – While enacting the provisions of sub-Section (7) of s.6, the Parliament was conscious of the fact that an interlude may occur between the date of the issuance of a direction and the actual taking up of the investigation by the NIA – However, between the issuance of a direction under sub-Sections (4) or (5) of s.6 and the actual taking up of the investigation by the NIA, there should be no hiatus in the investigation to the detriment of the interests of national security involved in the enactment of the legislation. National Investigation Agency Act, 2008: s.6(7) – Continuation of investigation by the ATS Nanded, propriety of – Investigation was initiated by the ATS Nanded following the registration of the FIR on 14 July 2016, on receipt of source information that appellant-N was in contact over the internet with members of IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh – This led to arrest of four accused persons, including appellant-N and one ‘M’ – Thereafter, considering the gravity of the offence involved, the Central government directed the NIA Mumbai to take up further investigation of the case on 8 September 2016, exercising its powers under s.6(4) of the NIA Act – NIA Mumbai re-numbered the case on 14 September 2016 – However, the NIA Mumbai intimated the ATS Nanded to transfer the case records to them on 23 November 2016, and it was only on 8 December 2016 that the records were handed over to the NIA Mumbai by the ATS Nanded – Meanwhile, ATS Nanded had filed the charge-sheet before the CJM, Nanded on 7 October 2016 (which was prior to even the letter of the NIA Mumbai dated 23 November 2016 for the handing over of the case records) – Likewise, the CJM, Nanded took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to trial before the ASJ, Nanded on 18 October 2016 – While the NIA Mumbai may have re-numbered the case file on 14 September 2016, it could not have taken the initial step of its investigation into the case till it had access to the case papers, which it only received from the ATS Nanded on 8 December 2016 – Thus, the mere renumbering of the case filed by the NIA Mumbai did not take away the power of the ATS Nanded to continue the investigation – The said authority could do so till the records of the case were received by the NIA Mumbai – Hence, the investigation conducted by the ATS Nanded prior to this was within the mandate of sub-Section (7) of s.6 of the NIA Act – The said provision is clarificatory in nature so as to remove any doubt about the duty of the officer in-charge of the police station to continue the investigation till the ‘Agency’, i.e., the NIA Mumbai in the instant case, took up the investigation on receipt of the case papers – Therefore, the continuation of the investigation, and the filing of the charge-sheet upon its conclusion, by the ATS Nanded was in terms of the statutory mandate under s.6(7) of the NIA Act. National Investigation Agency Act, 2008: ss.10, 11 – Jurisdiction of CJM Nanded for remand and committal to trial – A reading of s.10 of the NIA Act indicates that there is no embargo on the State Investigating Agency to investigate a scheduled offence, which would include offences under the UAPA – Consequently, till the investigation was taken up by the NIA Mumbai, the ATS Nanded was acting within jurisdiction in investigating the offence and filing the charge-sheet in the instant case – NIA Mumbai took up the investigation only on 8 December 2016 after receiving the records from the ATS Nanded, and thereupon it filed an application for transfer of the case from the ASJ, Nanded to the NIA Special Court, Mumbai constituted under s.11 of the NIA Act – However, till the NIA Mumbai took over the investigation, jurisdiction would reside with a Court which ordinarily had it – The Government of Maharashtra in exercise of powers conferred by s.11 read with s.185 of the CrPC had issued a notification dated 26 August 2016 designating the CJM, Nanded as the remand court and the ASJ, Nanded as a Special Court for the trial of cases filed by the ATS Nanded – There was no challenge to the said notification – In this backdrop, the CJM, Nanded was designated as a Court of remand and the ASJ, Nanded as a Special Court under the CrPC for the trial of cases filed by the ATS Nanded – Hence, they both had the jurisdiction to entertain the instant case under the UAPA till the NIA Mumbai took over the investigation on 8 December 2016, and sought a transfer of the case to the NIA Special Court at Mumbai constituted under s.11 of the NIA Act – Jurisdiction. |
