Karnataka High Court
Mahammad Shiyab S vs National Investigation Agency on 31 May, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:18664
WP No. 2686 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 2686 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MAHAMMAD SHIYAB S
S/O MOHAMMAD SAJID
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NO.1-30, SHETTIYADKA HOUSE
GANDHINAGAR, NAVOOR VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574314
Digitally signed ...PETITIONER
by NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (GOI)
HYDRABADE BRANCH
REP. BY ITS STANDING COUNSEL
SRI PRASANNA KUMAR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:18664
WP No. 2686 of 2023
OFFICE AT HIGH COURT COMPLEX
OPP. VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
2. UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY UNDER SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NORTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI - 110 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. H SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-ISSUE WRIT OF
MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT TO
RESPONDENT NIA TO EXTRACT AND PRESERVE THE CCTV
IMAGES OF CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION OF THE EACH
ACCUSED AND EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES UNDER SECTION
161 OF CRPC AND MADE PART AND PARCEL OF CASE DIARY,
WHICH CAN BE USED AS PER THE MANDATE OF SECTION 172
OF CRPC AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:18664
WP No. 2686 of 2023
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel Sri.Mohammed Tahir, appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, Sri.Shanthi Bhushan H., appearing for respondent No.2.
2. Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent submits that any order passed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, should be placed before the Division Bench of the High Court. He seeks to place reliance upon the judgment of the full Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the case of MASTIGUDA ABOOBACKER VS. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY reported in 2020 SCC Online Ker 5159.
3. He would further submit that all the appeals against a bail application that is rejected should also be placed and heard by the Division Bench of the High Court, as the proceedings arise out of the proceedings under the provisions of the NIA Act.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:18664 WP No. 2686 of 2023 The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the aforesaid case has held as follows:
"56. It is therefore clear that the powers exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code, viz., to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court of otherwise to secure the ends of justice, are not identical with the constitutional powers provided under Article
227. In other words, the ambit, intendment and scope of these two powers are not similar and one cannot be regarded as a substitute for the other. We, therefore, hold that availability of supervisory power under Article 227 can never be a reason to exclude the inherent powers existing in the High Court, which is expressly saved under Section 482 of the Code. We also hold that there is no express or implied bar created by the NIA Act in the exercise of the High Court's inherent powers safeguarded under Section 482 of the Code. Besides, as held by the Constitution Bench of the apex Court in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani and followed in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Constitution confirmed and revested in the High Court all the existing powers and jurisdictions, including its inherent powers. The inherent powers of the High Court, preserved by Section 561A of the old Code and Section 482 of the present Code, are thus vested in the High Court by "law" within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. We shall neither negate nor abdicate or abridge the inherent powers of the High Court by relying on some flimsy inferences because the exercise of such powers will be essentially required in certain cases. We, therefore, hold that in appropriate cases the High Court has power to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
..........
64. In order to dispel the apprehension regarding causation of delay, we hereby declare that the High Court's inherent powers saved under Section 482 of the Code cannot be invoked on flimsy reasons or on trivial -5- NC: 2024:KHC:18664 WP No. 2686 of 2023 grounds. Large body of case law on the point would clearly show that the powers should be exercised with great care and caution. Also, the High Court should apply its sound judicial discretion when a matter is brought up in the form of a petition under Section 482 of the Code. Unless it is established that one of the ingredients of Section 482 of the Code is satisfied, the High Court will take its hands off.
............
66. Hence, we are of the view that when a petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code challenging an interlocutory order passed in a case registered under the NIA Act, it shall be placed before a Bench of two Judges for hearing and disposal. We are sure that the Bench certainly will consider the issues raised therein and decide the plea based on the precedential law relating to the exercise of inherent powers of the High Court. We are also sure that the Bench will take note of the prejudice likely to be caused by a delayed decision."
(Emphasis supplied) Therefore, Registry is directed to place the matter before the Division Bench having appropriate roster.
For statistical purpose, the writ petition stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53