Kerala High Court
Vikraman vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 11 November, 2016
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim, V Shircy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAYOF MARCH 2017/2ND CHAITHRA, 1939
CRL.A.No. 283 of 2017 ()
-------------------------
CRIME NO. 780/2014 OF KATHIRUR POLICE STATION , KANNUR
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1, 2, 4 TO 10, 13 TO 17,19:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. VIKRAMAN
AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, KATTIL MEETHAL HOUSE,
KIZHAKEY KATHIRUR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT(A1).
2. JIJESH.C.P,
AGED 34 YEARS,S/O.DAMU NAMBIDI, KUNIYIL HOUSE,
KIZHAKEY KATHIRUR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT(A2)
3. PRABHAKARAN.T,
AGED 40 YRS,S/O.ACHU, LUDHIYA NIVAS, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE,
MALOOR.P.O,KANNUR DISTRICT.(A4).
4. SHIBIN,
AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN, OTHAYOTH HOUSE,
VETTUMMAL, KATHIRUR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT(A5).
5. SUJITH.P,
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.SURENDRAN, CHOOLAVIL HOUSE,
KOTAYAM POYIL.P.O,THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT.(A6).
6. VINOD @ VINU,
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, NANDIATH HOUSE,
KATHIRUR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.(A7).
7. RIJU,
AGED 28 YEARS, S/O ANDI, MEETHALA THACHARATH HOUSE,
KAVILMOOLA.P.O,MALOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT(A8).
8. SINIL,
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN,SINIL NIVAS, KUNNUMAL,
THOLAMBRA.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT(A9).
9. BIJESH POOVADAN @ BIJU,
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, MEETHALE THACHARATH,
KAVILMOOLA.P.O,MALOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT(A10)
CRL.A.No. 283 of 2017 -2-
10. VIJESH @ MUTHU,
AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.BHASKARAN, KANATHIL HOUSE,
UKKAS MOTTA, KATHIRUR, THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT(A13).
11. VIJESH @ GEORGEKUTTI,
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.VALSAN, VALIYAPARAMBATH,
UKKAS MOTTA, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT(A14).
12. MANOJ,
AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, KANNOTH HOUSE,
BRHAMAVU MUKKU, KIZHAKKE KATHIRUR, THALASSERY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT(A16).
13. SHABITH,
AGED 33 YEARS, S/O GOVINDAN, MEETHALE VALIYOTH,
BRHAMAVU MUKKU, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT(A16).
14. NITH @ NIJITH,
AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, VAKKUMMAL, AMBILAD,
P.O.NIRMALAGIRI, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT(A17).
15. P.P.RAHIM @ JAGA RAHIM,
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED, POOLAKANDI PARAMBA,
AMBILAD.P.O, NOW RESIDING AT C.K. QUARTERS,
24/393 OF KUTHUPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, PAZHAYANIRATH,
THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT(A19).
BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
----------------------------------------------
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS STANDING COUNSEL, CBI,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.
BY SRI.P. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, C.B.I.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-03-2017,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
AMG
CRL.A.No. 283 of 2017
APPENDIX
APPELLANTS' ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE-A- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL. APPEAL
No.930/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 11-11-2016.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
NIL
True copy
P.S. ToJudge
AMG
C.K.ABDUL REHIM & SHIRCY V, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
Crl. A.No. 283 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2017
JUDGMENT
Abdul Rehim,J.
The above appeal is instituted under section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act (NIA Act) challenging a common order passed by the Sessions Court, Thalassery in Cr.M.P.Nos.5118/16 and 5119/16 in SC.No.200/15 dated 19.1.2017. The above appeal was filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 13 days. Since a question of maintainability of the appeal arose for consideration, this court directed the registry to number the appeal even without condonation of delay.
2. Standing Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation, who entered appearance on behalf of the respondent contended that, an appeal under section 21(4) of the NIA Act is not maintainable in view of the order passed by the hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal Crl.A.283/2017 2 No.519/17, dated 7.3.2017. The case at hand is one investigated by the CBI with respect to various offences, including offence punishable section 15(1)(a)(i) read with section 16(a),18 and 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (UA (P) Act for short). Originally the FIR was registered by the State Police as Crime No.780/14 of Kadirur Police Station. Through a Notification dated 27.10.2014, the investigation was handed over to the CBI. On an earlier occasion, when a matter came up before this court in which an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court refusing to grant bail was challenged, this court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to transmit records of the case to the Sessions Court, Thalassery on finding that under section 22(3) of the NIA Act the Sessions Court alone has got jurisdiction to try the case, being one registered with schedule offences under the NIA Act. The CBI had challenged the above said order before the hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal No.519/17. Hon'ble Supreme Crl.A.283/2017 3 Court considered the question as to whether the case investigated by the CBI involving schedule offences under the NIA Act need be tried by the Special Court constituted under the NIA Act or by the special court constituted by the State of Kerala in terms of Notification, dated 30.5.2014. It was observed by the apex court that, if the schedule offence under the NIA Act need not be investigated by the NIA then the Central Government is empowered to take appropriate decision in this regard as prescribed under the statutory procedure. It is found that, if the investigation is by the NIA, the special court under section 11 has to try the offence. It is further observed that, if the investigation is by a State agency, the trial has to be done either by the regular court or by the special court, as provided under section 22 of the NIA Act. But with respect to cases investigated by the CBI, the hon'ble apex court observed that, the NIA Act is silent. Therefore it is observed that if the offence is investigated by the CBI the jurisdiction will Crl.A.283/2017 4 be with the court constituted in terms of the relevant Notification issued by the State Government. The apex court found that by virtue of notification, dt. 30.5.2014 issued by the State of Kerala for the trial of offences investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) the jurisdiction will be with the court constituted in terms of such Notification. Therefore it is observed that, the proceedings in the case at hand need to be transferred by the Sessions Court to the Special court constituted under the Notification, which is the Additional Special Sessions Court at Ernakulam.
3. It is pointed out that, the provision of appeal under section 21 of the NIA Act is only with respect to any judgment or order passed by a special court constituted under the NIA Act. Since it is held by the hon'ble Supreme Court that the case at hand is to be tried by the special court constituted by virtue of the notification of the State Government, the order impugned herein need not be Crl.A.283/2017 5 considered as an order passed by the Special court under the NIA Act.
4. Therefore the above appeal filed under section 21 (4) is not maintainable. The appellants are left with appropriate other remedies provided under relevant provisions of law. Consequently, the above appeal is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
Sd/-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Sd/-
SHIRCY V., JUDGE Pmn/