Deemed withdrawal under a repeal statute can operate without section 321 procedure, while judicial review remains available.

Sections 2(3) and 2(5) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Act, 2004 were upheld as a valid repeal-and-savings mechanism and not an unconstitutional encroachment on judicial power. The Court held that Parliament could provide for deemed withdrawal of pending POTA proceedings, including cases where cognizance had already been taken, while preserving judicial review under Articles 226 and 136. It further held that the Review Committee's opinion that no prima facie case existed triggered withdrawal directly under the Repeal Act and did not require the additional procedure under section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Writ review against the Committee's opinion remained available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sections 2(3) and 2(5) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Act, 2004 are unconstitutional as encroaching upon judicial power and the basic structure; (ii) Whether, on the Review Committee forming the opinion that no prima facie case exists, withdrawal of pending POTA proceedings still requires compliance with section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether sections 2(3) and 2(5) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal) Act, 2004 are unconstitutional as encroaching upon judicial power and the basic structure.

Analysis: The provisions were examined as part of a repeal-and-savings scheme enacted by Parliament in exercise of its legislative competence over terrorism-related legislation. The Act did not abolish judicial review under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution of India, and the Committee's opinion remained open to challenge in writ jurisdiction. The Court treated the repeal provisions as winding-up measures attached to the repeal of a special statute and held that the legislature could validly provide for deemed withdrawal of pending proceedings without violating the constitutional scheme.

Conclusion: The challenge to the constitutional validity of sections 2(3) and 2(5) failed and those provisions were upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the Review Committee forming the opinion that no prima facie case exists, withdrawal of pending POTA proceedings still requires compliance with section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The Court contrasted section 2(3) of the Repeal Act with section 60(4) to (7) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 and held that the repeal provision uses clear language that pending cases, including cases where cognizance has been taken, shall be deemed to have been withdrawn once the Committee records the requisite opinion. That scheme was held to exclude the additional step of a Public Prosecutor's independent application and the court's consent under section 321 of the Code. Judicial review under Article 226 remained available against the Committee's opinion.

Conclusion: Compliance with section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not required where withdrawal operates by deeming fiction under section 2(3) of the Repeal Act.

Final Conclusion: The repeal provisions were sustained, and the deemed-withdrawal mechanism was held to operate independently of the withdrawal procedure under the criminal procedure law, while leaving writ remedies intact against the Review Committee's decision.

Ratio Decidendi: A repeal statute may validly provide for deemed withdrawal of pending prosecutions in a special-law scheme, and where the legislative text is clear, that deemed withdrawal operates without importing the general withdrawal procedure under section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---