IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 751 of 2011() ------------------------ SC.1/2011 of SPECIAL COURT FOR NIA CASES, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------- ABDUL RASIK, S/O. ABDUL RAHIM, PERAKATHUSSERI HOUSE, NADAKKAL, ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION-683 502. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA-683 101. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(ADMN) MALAPPURAM-676 505. 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NIA, NEW DELHI-110 001. 5. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R4 BY SRI.M.AJAY, SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NIA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.751 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 04th day of April, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the second accused in S.C. No.1 of 2011 of the Special Court for National Investigating Agency cases (for short, “the Special Court”). Petitioner seeks to quash Annexure-II, final report submitted in the Special Court. It is contended that the alleged incident which gave rise to registration of Crime No.159 of 2006 by the Binanipuram Police occurred some time in the year 2006, the said police had investigated the case and were about to submit a final report. While so, the NIA which was formed in the year 2008 took over investigation of the case and submitted final report. According to the learned counsel the NIA which was formed much after commission of the offence has no right to take over investigation of the case and hence the final report is without authority, based on which no cognizance could be taken and no charge could be framed by the Special Court. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that it is as per request of the Central Government under Section 6(5) of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 that the NIA has CRL.M.C. No.751 of 2011 -: 2 :- taken up investigation of the case. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, petitioner has no vested right as to the Forum of trial of the case or as to which agency should investigate the case. 2. If investigation is conducted by the NIA without authority and the final report submitted is without authority as contended by the petitioner, that is a matter which petitioner could urge before the Special Court at the time of framing charge. In the above situation it is not necessary for this Court to go into the contentious issues raised by the parties. But I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to urge his contentions in the Special Court at the time that Court is to frame charge in the case. I also make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion regarding the merit of contentions raised by the parties. Without prejudice to the right of petitioner to raise his contentions before the Special Court at the time of framing charge, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv