M/S Santosh Construction vs Union Of India Through The ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 945 Jhar

                         1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
         Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 154 of 2023
                         -----

M/s Santosh Construction .... ... Appellant Versus Union of India through the National Investigation Agency ... ... Respondent

-------

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

-------

For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. A.K.Das, Advocate

------

Order No. 04/Dated 27th February, 2023

So far as the issue of maintainability, as has been

pointed out by the office, is concerned, this Court, after

going through the material available on record and

considering the fact that the order impugned has been

passed on an application filed by the petitioner/appellant

under Section 25(3) of the Unlawful Activity (Prevention)

Act, 1967, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1967,

against which an appeal has been filed under Section 25(6)

of the Act, 1967 before the Special Judge, the same having

been dismissed, the instant application has been filed.

The office has pointed out about its maintainability

as to whether it is to be heard by the Division Bench or the

Single Bench.

The Full Bench of this Court has decided the issue

in the case of Rakesh Saw @ Sahu @ Rakesh Kumar

Sahu v. State of Jharkhand (B.A. No.5937 of 2022) at

para 18 thereof that an order if passed in connection with

the offence committed under the provision of the Unlawful

Activity (Prevention) Act, 1967, is to be heard by the Special

Court if the offence is defined under Section 2(g) of the Act,

1967, i.e., under the fold of civil offences.

The aforesaid order has been passed by the Full

Bench of by taking into consideration the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2020) 10

SCC 616.

Considering the said ratio, the objection pertaining

to the maintainability, as has been pointed out by the

office, is hereby over ruled holding that the instant

application is maintainable to be heard by the Division

Bench.

As prayed for by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel

for the appellant, list this matter on 02.03.2023.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Subhash Chand, J.) Birendra/