Centre Can Direct NIA To Investigate Scheduled Offence Which Is Yet To Be Reported : Kerala High Court

Later, the High Court  permitted the cases pending before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Palakkad to be transferred to the Special Court, NIA in Ernakulam.

Accordingly, the accused approached the High Court challenging the FIR, the final report filed by the NIA before the Special Court, orders of the central government concerning the investigation of NIA cases and the order of the High Court transferring the case to the Special Court.

The primary contention of the petitioners was that under subsection (5) of Section 6 of the NIA Act, the Central Government is empowered to direct the NIA to investigate only a pending case

Court's verdict

On analysing Sections 6 (5), 6 (8) and the long title of the NIA Act, the Division Bench held that NIA was empowered to register such an FIR and investigate a scheduled offence on the direction of the central government. It also observed that an officer of the NIA had all the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station and could register the FIR and investigate offences scheduled in the NIA Act.

It further observed that under the Act, the NIA could also investigate cases which were yet to be registered and not just pending cases. It opined:

“No doubt, sub-section (5) is also intended to confer on the Central Government the power to direct investigation of a pending case by the NIA, notwithstanding the procedure prescribed for the same in terms of sub-sections (1) to (3) of Section 6, but that does not lead to the inference that the Central Government cannot direct investigation of a Scheduled Offence which is yet to be reported, after registering a case for the said purpose.”

In analyzing Sections 8 and 14 of the NIA Act which pertained to the investigation and trial of connected offences, the Court noted that while the agency was investigating any scheduled offence, it may also investigate any other offence which the accused were alleged to have committed if the offence was connected with the Scheduled Offence.

The Court thus observed that the NIA could investigate the murder of Srinivasan under the orders issued by the central government.

“A conjoint reading of Sections 8 and 14, in the light of the object of the NIA Act as contained in its long title and the remaining provisions contained in the NIA Act, indicate to us that the expression “connected with the scheduled offence” as contained in Section 8 ought to be understood in a wider perspective as an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused involved in a Scheduled Offence which is being investigated by the NIA and which has a bearing on the Scheduled Offence committed by the accused,” it held.

Finally, relying upon, Ranbir Yadav v. State of Bihar (1995) and Kamlesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand (2013), the Court held that the petitioners herein could not challenge the administrative power of the High Court to transfer cases, and thus dismissed their pleas. 

Counsel for the appellants: Senior Advocate S Sreekumar, Advocates E.A.Haris P.P.Harris, Renjith B Marar

Counsel for the respondents: Manu S. Deputy Solicitor General Of India, Senior Government Pleaders Alex M.Thombra, P.Narayanan , Sajju S, Special Government Pleader S.U.Nazar, , Advocates Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, Harindranath B G, Amith Krishnan H, Lejo Joseph George

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 701

Case title: Ali K @ Ragam Ali v Union of India and connected case

Case number: Crl.M.C.No.8198 of 2023 and W.P.(Crl.) No.1044 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment