2023 (5) TMI 1302 - SC - Indian Laws

NIA Act Section 16: Special Courts have original jurisdiction, accused cannot claim default bail without sanction

The SC ruled that filing a chargesheet within the statutory 180-day period under Section 173(2) CrPC constitutes sufficient compliance with Section 167 ... Grant of default bail - valid charge sheet or not - although the chargesheet might have been filed within the statutory time period as prescribed in law yet the chargesheet sans a valid order of sanction passed by a competent authority - cognizance of the chargesheet is necessary to prevent the Accused from seeking default bail or not - Special Court are in a position to take cognizance on account of failure on the part of the prosecution to obtain sanction to prosecute the Accused or not. HELD THAT:- The chargesheet is nothing but a final report of police officer Under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that on completion of the investigation, the police officer investigating into a cognizable offence shall submit a report. The report must be in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating therein(a) the names of the parties;(b) the nature of the information;(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom(e) whether the Accused has been arrested;(f) whether he had been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; and(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody Under Section 170 - In fact, the report Under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure purports to be an opinion of the Investigating Officer that as far as he is concerned he has been able to procure sufficient material for the trial of the Accused by the court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Nothing more need be stated in the report of the Investigating Officer. It is also not necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated. The details of the offence are required to be proved to bring home the guilt to the Accused at a later stage i.e., in the course of the trial of the case by adducing acceptable evidence. It is very much necessary that the evidence collected by the investigating agency in the form of chargesheet is thoroughly looked into and thereafter, the recommendations are made. The investigating agency gets full 180 days to complete the investigation and file its report before the competent court in accordance with Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If we accept the argument canvassed on behalf of the Appellants, it comes to this that the investigating agency may have to adjust the period of investigation in such a manner that within the period of 180 days, the sanction is also obtained and placed before the court. We find this argument absolutely unpalatable. The filing of a chargesheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that an Accused cannot claim any indefeasible right of being released on statutory/default bail Under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of the statutory time period to file the chargesheet. Once the investigation is completed, the report Under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be filed in the Special Court constituted under the Act. Section 16 of the NIA Act leaves no room for any doubt, as it empowers the Special Court to take cognizance of any offence without the Accused being committed to it, for trial, upon receiving a complaint of facts that constitute such offence or upon a police report of such facts. Thus, by incorporating Section 16 in the NIA Act the legislature has made the Special Court as the court of original jurisdiction unlike the Sessions Court, which is a court of committal under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The error on the part of the investigating agency in filing chargesheet first before the Court of Magistrate has nothing to do with the right of the Accused to seek statutory/default bail Under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The committal proceedings are not warranted, when it comes to prosecution under the UAPA by the NIA by virtue of Section 16 of the NIA Act. This is because the Special Court acts, as one of the original jurisdictions. By virtue of Section 16 of the NIA Act, the Court need not follow the requirements of Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appeals dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to the absence of a valid sanction order accompanying the chargesheet.2. Necessity of cognizance of the chargesheet to prevent the accused from seeking default bail.3. Compliance with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to failure to obtain sanction for prosecution under UAPA and the Explosive Substances Act.4. Validity of filing the chargesheet in the Magistrate's Court instead of the Special Court under the NIA Act.Summary:Issue 1: Entitlement to Default Bail Due to Absence of Sanction OrderThe court held that a chargesheet filed without a sanction is not considered incomplete under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The requirement for a sanction is relevant only at the stage of taking cognizance, not during the investigation. Once a final report is filed along with all necessary documents, the investigation is deemed complete. The court emphasized that obtaining a sanction is not part of the investigation process but a separate act required for the court to take cognizance of the offense. Therefore, the accused cannot claim an indefeasible right to default bail under Section 167(2) merely because the sanction order was not part of the chargesheet.Issue 2: Necessity of Cognizance of Chargesheet for Default BailThe court clarified that the filing of a chargesheet within the statutory period is sufficient to prevent the accused from seeking default bail under Section 167(2). The right to default bail is extinguished once the chargesheet is filed, irrespective of whether cognizance has been taken. The court reaffirmed that the stage of taking cognizance is distinct from the completion of the investigation, and the accused remains in custody of the Magistrate until cognizance is taken by the trial court.Issue 3: Compliance with Section 167(2) Due to Failure to Obtain SanctionThe court found no merit in the argument that failure to obtain a sanction for prosecution under the UAPA and the Explosive Substances Act amounts to non-compliance with Section 167(2). The requirement for a sanction is not contemplated under Section 167, which deals solely with the investigation process. The court reiterated that the right to default bail is contingent upon the non-filing of the chargesheet within the prescribed period, not the absence of a sanction order.Issue 4: Validity of Filing Chargesheet in Magistrate's CourtThe court acknowledged that the chargesheet should have been filed in the Special Court designated under the NIA Act, not the Magistrate's Court. However, this procedural error does not vitiate all subsequent proceedings or entitle the accused to default bail under Section 167(2). The court noted that the application for default bail was filed after the case had been committed to the Special Court, which had already taken cognizance of the offenses with the necessary sanctions in place.Conclusion:Both appeals were dismissed, affirming that the accused were not entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court emphasized the distinct stages of investigation and prosecution, the sufficiency of filing a chargesheet within the statutory period, and the procedural requirements for taking cognizance of offenses under special statutes like the UAPA and the NIA Act.