LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THROUGH I.G. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY versus MD. HUSSAIN @ SALEEM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 140 A STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THROUGH 1.G. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY v. MD. HUSSAIN @ SALEEM CRL. M.P. NQs. 17570 & 17571/2013 B IN c D SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) Nos. 7375/2012 SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 [H.L. GOKHALE AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - s.21 -Appeal from order of the Special Court under the Act, refusing or granting bail - Held: Shall lie only to a bench of two Judges of the High Court. National Investigation Agency Act, 2008- ss.2(g), 13, 14 and 16 - Bail application - Maintainability - Held: Where the NIA Act applies, the original application for bail shall lie only before the Special Court under the Act, and not before the E High Court either u/s.439 or u/s.482 CrPC. Interpretation of Statute - Construction of a section - Held: A Section is required to be read purposively and meaningfully - It is to be read in its entirety, and its sub- sections are to be read in relation to each other, and not F disjunctively - A few sub-sections of a section cannot be separated from other sub-sections, and read to convey something a/together different from tf)e theme underlying the 'entire section. G Issue pertaining to interpretation of Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 arose for consideration in the present appeal. The applicant-accused, besides other offences, was H 140 STATE OF A. P. THR. 1.G. NATIONAL INV. AGENCY v. 141 MD. HUSSAIN @ SALEEM also being prosecuted for "Scheduled Offences" under A the said Act. Based on the premise that the order granting or refusing a bail is an interlocutory order, two-fold submissions were made on behalf of the applicant- accused:- (i) That the order on a bail application is excluded from ~he coverage of Section 21 (1) of the Act, which provides for the appeals to the High Court from any judgment, sentence or order of a special court both B on facts and on law. It is only such appeals which are covered under Section 21(1) that are to be heard C by a bench of two judges of the High Court as laid down under Section 21 (2) of the Act. The appeal against refusal of bail lies to the High Court under Section 21 (4) and not under Section 21 (1 ), and 0 therefore, it need not be heard by a bench of two Judges. (ii) In any case, the bail application which the applicant had filed before the High Court was one under Section 21 (4) of the Maharashtra Control of E Organised Crimes Act, 1999 read with Section 439 CrPC, and was fully maintainable before a single Judge. Dismissing the petitions, the Court HELD: 1. In the instant case, the applicant is also being prosecuted for the offences under the provisions of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This Act F is included at SI. No.2 in the Schedule to the NIA Act, 2008. The term "Scheduled Offence" is defined under G Section 2(g) of the Act to mean an offence specified in the Schedule. Section 13 of the Act lays down the jurisdiction of Special Courts. When it comes to the Scheduled Offences, the Special Courts are given H 142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R. A exclusive jurisdiction to try them under Section 13(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. When it is a composite offence cove.red under any Act specified in the Schedule and some other act, the trial of S.!JCh offence is also to be conducted before the Special Court B in view of Section 14(1) of the Act. Section 16(2) of the Act gives the power to the Special Court to conduct a summary trial, where the offence is punishable wittl imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or, with fine or both. In view of Section 16(3) of the Act, the c application for bail by the accused lies before a Special Court. [Paras 8, 12] [148-G-H; 152-C-E, F-G] 2.1. Section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 provides that an appeal lies to the High Court against an order of the Special Court granting or D refusing bail. However sub-Section (3) which is a prior sub-section, specifically states that 'except as aforesaid', no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, sentence or order including an interlocutory order of a Special Court. Thus, as per the mandate of E Section 21 (3), when anybody is aggrieved by any judgment, sentence or order including an interlocutory order of the Special Court, no such appeal or revision shall lie to any Court except as provided un
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.