NASER BIN ABU BAKR YAFAI versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 353 · Decided: 20-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
353
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 353
353
NASER BIN ABU BAKR YAFAI
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1165 of 2021)
OCTOBER 20, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, VIKRAM NATH
AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
354
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
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 Mum

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.