In UAPA cases, magistrates cannot extend the time it takes to complete the investigation: Supreme Court

IN THE CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.963 OF 2021 OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONNO.7767 2018 SADIQUE & ORS. Appellant(s VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s O R D E R 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 ActivitiesAct 1967of 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 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 The matter was carried further by filing M.Cr.C. No. 13916 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 LL 2021 SC 434 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 was to the following effect: Para 26 of the decision of this Court in Bikramjit Singh “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 LL 2021 SC 434 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 is non 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 Dof 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 LL 2021 SC 434 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 In the end we must express our sincere gratitude for the assistance rendered by Mr. S.V. Raju learned ASG 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 AppealNo(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 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 The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order Pending applications if any shall stand disposed of. INDU MARWAH) BRANCH OFFICER SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE LL 2021 SC 434

Summary: The Supreme Court ruled that magistrates lacked the authority to extend the period for UAPA investigations. According to the bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Belam M Trivedi, the only competent authority to evaluate such a request is “the Court,” as provided in the proviso in Section 43-D (2)(b) of the UAPA. In this instance, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bhopal allowed the Investigating Machinery’s request for an extension under Section 43-D(2)(b) of the UAPA. In addition, the accused’s motion for bail was denied since the Investigating Agency failed to file a charge sheet within 90 days. The High Court upheld the orders, noting that because the CJM of Bhopal had issued an appropriate order, the time limit for the Investigating Machinery to complete the investigation had been extended to 180 days. Thus the appellants’ applications under Section 167(2) of the Code were not maintainable. Taking note of the decision in Bikramjit Singh vs the State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 616, the bench made the following observations: “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 nonexistent”.