Chattisgarh High Court
Nishant Jain vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 September, 2021
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No.961 of 2021
Nishant Jain S/o Suresh Chand Jain Aged About 42 Years R/o Shanti Nagar,
Ring Road No. 2, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Siksod,
Tehsil - Antagarh, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
Shri Siddharth Shukla, counsel for appellant.
Shri Lalit Jangde, Dy.GA for State.
Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava &
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor
Order On Board
22/09/2021
1. Heard on the question of maintainability of appeal.
2. At the outset, learned State counsel has raised preliminary objection with
regard to maintainability of the present appeal preferred against interlocutory
order of framing of charges that under the scheme of Section 21(1) of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, (In short "the Act of 2008") remedy of
appeal may not be available. He would further submit that even remedy of
revision is also not available, in view of the specific bar, therefore, this appeal is
not maintainable.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would, however, bring to the notice of
this Court the provisions contained under Section 21(1) of the Act of 2008 as
also decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Another (decided on 07-05-2021 in Criminal Appeal
No.472 of 2021) to submit that the order of framing of charge cannot be
construed as an interlocutory order and therefore, bar under Section 21(1) of
the Act of 2008 will not apply and the revision would be maintainable.
4. The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 lays down special provision
with regard to constitution of Special Court and other special provisions. Section
21 of the Act of 2008 provides for appeal, as below:-
21 Appeals. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, an
appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an
interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the High Court both on facts and
on law.
(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench of two
Judges of the High Court and shall, as far as possible, be disposed of
within a period of three months from the date of admission of the appeal.
(3) Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from
any judgment, sentence or order including an interlocutory order of a
Special Court.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of section 378
of the Code, an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the
Special Court granting or refusing bail.
(5) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of
thirty days from the date of the judgment, sentence or order appealed
from: Provided that the High Court may entertain an appeal after the
expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant
had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty
days:
Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained after the expiry of
period of ninety days.
While sub section(1) provides that an appeal against judgment,
sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court
to the High Court both on facts and on law.
Sub section(3) however creates bar by providing that except Except as
aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment,
sentence or order including an interlocutory order of a Special Court.
Sub Section (4) contains special provision with regard to remedy of
appeal against an order of the Special Court granting or refusing bail.
5. Conjoint reading of the aforesaid provision of Section 21(1), (3) & (4) of
the Act of 2008 leave no manner of doubt that in so far as remedy against
judgment, sentence or order of a Special Court is concerned, it is a self
contained Court. The Act provides remedy for certain category of orders and at
the same time, bars remedy of appeal and even revision against judgment,
sentence or order including an interlocutory order of a Special Court. Therefore,
the only statutory remedy against an order of Special Court is appeal as
maintainable under Section 21(1) & (4) of the Act of 2008.
6. Whether an order framing charge is interlocutory order or not, has been
considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai(supra). In
that case, the Supreme Court taking into consideration its decision in the case
of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299 as also earlier decision in the case of
Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 has
authoritatively pronounced that the order framing charge as also order of
discharge would not constitute interlocutory order, though, it cannot be said to
be a final order also.
7. However, for the purpose of the present case, application of the principles
laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions leave no iota of
doubt and make it settled legal position that an order framing charge under the
Act of 2008 would be appealable under Section 21(1), because, it constitutes an
order not being interlocutory order.
8. The objection of learned State counsel with regard to maintainability, is
therefore, overruled.
9. The appeal is maintainable, therefore, admitted for hearing.
10. List this matter for final hearing after two weeks.
11. Learned State counsel shall keep available the charge sheet and case
diary of this case for perusal of the Court at the time of hearing.
SD/- SD/-
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
Judge Judge
Tumane
