Order Framing Charge Is Interlocutory Order, Can't Be Challenged In Appeal Under Section 21 Of NIA Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an order framing charges against accused is interlocutory in nature and cannot be challenged in appeal under Section 21 of National Investigation Agency Act.
A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain observed that the term “order” in Section 21(1) refers to a final order and not an interlocutory or intermediate order.
“An Order framing Charge, as against final order is an interlocutory order, as it does not decide any proceeding finally and the term „intermediate order‟ is a concept of revisional jurisdiction, which cannot be applied while interpreting the term „appeal‟ both on facts and law,” the Court said.
The Bench added that the Scheme of NIA Act is that for the Scheduled offences, the investigation as well as trial shall be speedy and therefore, revision challenging any order is absolutely barred to enable Court to hold proceedings expeditiously.
It said that an appeal is provided only from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, to a Division Bench of the High Court both on facts and on law.
“The term “order” here is preceded by words „judgment‟ and „sentence‟ and followed by „not being an interlocutory order‟. The scope of challenge to such order is by way of appeal both on facts and law. Thus, the order has to be a final order, like a judgment or sentence which can be challenged both on facts and law and conclude proceeding finally,” the Court said.
Further, the Court said that though a revision is barred, there is no provision in NIA Act enlarging the scope of challenge of an order framing charge from supervisory jurisdiction to challenge on facts and law.
“Even otherwise, in case legislature desired to provide an appeal against an Order framing Charge, as against a bail order is provided under Sub-Section (4), it would have so legislated. However, it would not mean that the accused would be left remediless as the NIA Act does not bar application of Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS. Any person aggrieved can challenge the same under inherent powers of the High Court,” the Court held.
The Court passed the ruling while rejecting the appeals filed by sons of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen chief Syed Salahuddin and others challenging the framing of charges against them in a Jammu and Kashmir terror funding case.
The Court also rejected similar petitions filed by various other NIA accused- Masarat Alam Bhat, Shabir Ahmed Shah, Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, Nayeem Ahmed Khan, Javed Ali, Alemla Jamir, Masasasong Ao, Abdur Rehman, MD Waqar Lone, Rajkumar, Rouf Ahmad Bhat, Mateen Ahmed Bhat, Hasir Nisar Langoo, Manan Dar, Hanan Gulzar Dar, Zamin Adil Bhat and Arsalan Feroze.
The appellants had contended that as per Section 21 of the NIA Act, an appeal is maintainable against every order other than an interlocutory order.
However, NIA said that a plain reading cannot be given to Section 21 as the same would not serve the purpose of the NIA Act. It was argued that a purposeful interpretation needs to be given to the provision, keeping in view the purpose of the enactment.
Title: SHAHID YOUSUF v. NIA and other connected matters