Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sadique vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 September, 2021
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.963 OF 2021
(@ OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.7767/2018)
SADIQUE & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated
11-09-2017 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Principal Seat at Jabalpur in MCRC No. 1395/2016.
The appellant No.1 was arrested on 24.12.2013 in
connection with crime registered pursuant to FIR No.22/2013
lodged with STF/ATS Police Station, District Bhopal in respect
of offences punishable under Sections 307, 34, 467, 468, 481
and 120-B of IPC, Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act,
Sections 3,10,13,15,18,19,20,23,38 and 39 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA” for short).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Indu Marwah
Appellant Nos.2 to 4 were also arrested around the same
Date: 2021.09.09
17:39:13 IST
Reason:
time.
On 20th March, 2014 while dealing with an application
2
moved on behalf of the Investigating Machinery under Section
43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA, appropriate extension was granted by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal.
On completion of 90 days of their actual custody,
applications on behalf of appellants were moved under Section
167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for short)
seeking bail on the ground that no charge-sheet was filed by
the Investigating Agency within 90 days.
Said applications under Section 167(2) of the Code having
been rejected by the Court of CJM, Bhopal, Revision
Applications were preferred by the appellants which were also
rejected by the Sessions Court, Bhopal vide order dated
09.07.2015.
The matter was carried further by filing M.Cr.C. No. 1396
of 2016 under Section 482 of the Code.
The High Court by its judgment which is presently under
challenge rejected the prayer. It was observed by the High
Court that since the CJM, Bhopal had passed an appropriate
order on 20th March, 2014, the period available for the
Investigating Machinery to complete the investigation stood
extended to 180 days and as such the applications preferred by
the appellants under Section 167(2) of the Code were not
maintainable and that the appellants were not entitled to the
3
relief as prayed for.
Considering the importance of the matter, this Court
requested Mr. S.V. Raju, learned ASG to assist this Court.
Appearing for the appellants, Mr. Siddhartha Dave,
learned Senior Advocate has relied upon the decision of this
Court in Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab1. It is submitted
that para 26 of the decision completely covers the issue and
that the extension granted in the instant case by CJM, Bhopal
was beyond jurisdiction and would, therefore, be of no
consequence.
Para 26 of the decision of this Court in Bikramjit Singh
was to the following effect:
“26. Before the NIA Act was enacted, offences
under the UAPA were of two kinds — those with a
maximum imprisonment of over 7 years, and those
with a maximum imprisonment of 7 years and under.
Under the Code as applicable to offences against
other laws, offences having a maximum sentence
of 7 years and under are triable by the
Magistrate’s courts, whereas offences having a
maximum sentence of above 7 years are triable by
Courts of Session. This scheme has been
completely done away with by the NIA Act, 2008
as all Scheduled Offences i.e. all offences
under the UAPA, whether investigated by the
National Investigation Agency or by the
investigating agencies of the State Government,
are to be tried exclusively by Special Courts set
up under that Act. In the absence of any
designated court by notification issued by
either the Central Government or the State
Government, the fallback is upon the Court of
Session alone. Thus, under the aforesaid scheme
what becomes clear is that so far as all offences
under the UAPA are concerned, the Magistrate’s
jurisdiction to extend time under the first
proviso in Section 43-D(2)(b) is non-existent,
“the Court” being either a Sessions Court, in the
1(2020) 10 SCC 616
4
absence of a notification specifying a Special
Court,or the Special Court itself. The impugned
judgment in arriving at the contrary conclusion
is incorrect as it has missed Section 22(2) read
with Section 13 of the NIA Act. Also, the
impugned judgment has missed Section 16(1) of the
NIA Act which states that a Special Court may
take cognizance of any offence without the
accused being committed to it for trial, inter
alia, upon a police report of such facts.”
After considering various provisions of the relevant
statues, it was concluded that “so far as all offences under
the UAPA are concerned, the Magistrate’s jurisdiction to extend
time under the first proviso in Section 43-D (2)(b) is non-
existent”.
Consequently, in so far as “Extension of time to complete
investigation” is concerned, the Magistrate would not be
competent to consider the request and the only competent
authority to consider such request would be “the Court” as
specified in the proviso in Section 43-D (2)(b) of the UAPA.
In view of the law laid down by this Court, we accept the
plea raised by the appellants and hold them entitled to the
relief of default bail as prayed for.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
The appellants be produced before the concerned Trial
Court within three days from today and the Trial Court, shall
release them on bail subject to such conditions as the Trial
5
Court may deem appropriate to impose to ensure their presence
and participation in the pending trial.
We have been apprised that the trial has progressed to a
considerable length. We, therefore, direct the Trial Court to
conclude the proceedings as early as possible.
With these observations, the instant criminal appeal is
allowed.
In the end, we must express our sincere gratitude for the
assistance rendered by Mr. S.V. Raju, learned ASG.
……….…………………………………J.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT]
…...…………………………………J.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]
……………...……………………J.
[BELA M. TRIVEDI]
New Delhi;
September 7, 2021.
6
ITEM NO.3 Court 2 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 7767/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-09-2017
in MCRC No. 1395/2016 passed by the High Court Of M.P. Principal
Seat At Jabalpur)
SADIQUE & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Date : 07-09-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, AOR
Mr. Abu Bakr Sabbag, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER (SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE)