The Supreme Court recently ruled that in the absence of the designation of a special court by the state government, the Sessions Court would have the jurisdiction to try offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
The bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta stated that a bare perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 22 of NIA Act would make it clear that until a Special Court is constituted by the state government under sub-Section (1) of Section 22, in case of registration of any offence punishable under UAPA, the Court of Sessions of the division, where the offence has been committed, would have the jurisdiction as conferred by the Act on a Special Court and a fortiori, it would have all the powers to follow the procedure provided under Chapter IV of the NIA Act.
The order passed by Justice Sandeep Mehta upheld the UAPA proceedings initiated by the Sessions Courts when there was no designation of the special court by the state government. The initiation of the proceedings by the session judge relied on the preliminary investigation report which was challenged before the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the UAPA proceedings mentioning that only a Special Court constituted by the Centre or the state government according to the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) had the exclusive jurisdiction to try the offences under UAPA.
The High Court’s decision was challenged before the Supreme Court by the West Bengal government. The court maintained that the mandate of law stated under Section 22 of the NIA Act by mentioning that the Court of Sessions of the division, in which the offence has been committed, would have the jurisdiction as conferred by the NIA Act on a Special Court to try UAPA cases where no special court was designated by the state government.
The court further remarked that it is not in dispute that the state of West Bengal has so far not exercised the power conferred upon it by Section 22 of the NIA Act for establishing a Special Court for trial of offences set out in the Schedule to the NIA Act and hence, the Sessions Court within whose jurisdiction, the offence took place which would be the Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court in the case at hand, had the power and jurisdiction to deal with the case by virtue of the sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the NIA Act.
The court also ruled that the jurisdictional magistrate would be authorized to remand the accused in UAPA cases for the period of 90 days, and the remand beyond the period of 90 days would be authorized by an express order of the Sessions Court or the Special Court by virtue of Section 43D(2) of the UAPA.
The Court added that considering the the definition of the Court provided under Section 2(1)(d) of UAPA, the jurisdictional Magistrate would also be clothed with the jurisdiction to deal with the remand of the accused albeit for a period of 90 days only because an express order of the Sessions Court or the Special Court, as the case may be, authorising remand beyond such period would be required by virtue of Section 43D(2) of UAPA(reproduced supra).
Subsequently, the impugned judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court was reversed and set aside.